MAULANA AZAD ALPSANKHYANK ARTHIK VIKAS MAHAMANDAL MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-2(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7542/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to represent its case effectively.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order sustaining reassessment proceedings. The assessee was ex parte before the lower authorities and could not effectively present its case.

What were the issues?

The primary issues involved the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated without proper approvals and the merits of additions made without considering specific exemptions and constitutional provisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151,Section 151A,Section 10(26BB),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (CIT
Pronounced: 11.05.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT (APPEALS)- NFAC DELHI dated 12-Sep-2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the re-assessment proceedings invalidly initiated by the

ITA 7542/MUM/2025 MAULANA AZAD ALPSANKHYANK ARTHIK VIKAS MAHAMANDAL MARYADIT Jurisdictional Assessing Officer by obtaining approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax; whereas since the impugned notice dated 06.04.2022 issued under section 148 and the impugned order dated 06.04.2022 passed under section 148A(d) were issued/passed beyond three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year; hence approval ought to have been obtained pursuant to section 151(ii); thereby vitiating the entire re-assessment proceeding.

2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the re-assessment proceedings invalidly initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer who erred in issuing notice under section 148 in violation of provisions contained in section 151A.

3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the re-assessment proceedings invalidly initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer by not providing the sanction note of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax thereby violating the directions laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs. ACIT [WP No. 546/2022; order dated 15.02.2022).

4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the re-assessment proceedings invalidly initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in violation of the prerequisite jurisdictional conditions as enumerated in section 148A, 149 and 151 of the Act inter-alia that there was no income chargeable to tax' in the present case.

5) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the impugned addition of Rs. 663,20,38,430/ made by the Ld. Assessing Officer without granting exemption under section 10(26BB) of the Act.

6) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the impugned addition of Rs. 663,20,38,430/ made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in utter disregards to Article 289 of the Constitution of India.

7) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the impugned addition of Rs. 660,84,92,780/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer alleging it to be unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, disregarding the factual and legal matrix of the case.

8) In the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in uploading the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer who erred in adding a sum of

ITA 7542/MUM/2025 MAULANA AZAD ALPSANKHYANK ARTHIK VIKAS MAHAMANDAL MARYADIT Rs. 2,35,45,653/- to the income of the Appellant Company as interest received from bank accounts/time deposits, disregarding the factual and legal matrix of the case.

2.

At the very outset, we noticed that the assessee was ex parte before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the AO and, thus, could not file proper documents in order to substantiate its case.

3.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that the assessee could not make an effective representation before the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the AO, and in the interest of justice, the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to represent its case before the AO. Therefore, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh in a de novo assessment after providing adequate opportunity of being heard, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the assessee. The said amount shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund, and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on record before the AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. The assessee is also at liberty to raise new grounds or file fresh evidence in support of its case.

4.

Before parting, we want to make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the AO shall in no way be construed as having any bearing on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law.

ITA 7542/MUM/2025 MAULANA AZAD ALPSANKHYANK ARTHIK VIKAS MAHAMANDAL MARYADIT 5. Needless to mention, the AO shall provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Sd/- Sd/-

BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 11.05.2026

ITA 7542/MUM/2025 MAULANA AZAD ALPSANKHYANK ARTHIK VIKAS MAHAMANDAL MARYADIT Copy to: MAULANA AZAD ALPSANKHYANK ARTHIK VIKAS MAHAMANDAL MARYADIT, 1 2 ND FLOOR, D.D.BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG. FORT., MUMBAI-400023, MAHARASHTRA ITO WARD-2(2)(3), 2 AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD., MUMBAI- 400020, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →