SANJEEV PRABHAKAR PATIL,BHIWANDI, THANE vs. ITO WARD 1.1 KALYAN, KALYAN

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

ITA No.676/M/2026 Sanjeev Prabhakar Patil law. The assessee has also challenged additions made u/s 69A, 69C and addition under the head short term capital gain. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and admittedly had not filed return of income for A.Y. 2015-16. As per information available with the department through Non-Filing Monitoring System (NMS) data and Insight Portal, it was noticed that during the relevant previous year the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.6,00,000/-, incurred foreign travel expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- and sold immovable property for consideration of Rs.53,44,000/-. Based on the said information, proceedings u/s 147 were initiated after passing order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 dated 04.04.2022 came to be issued. 4. The assessment order reveals that notices issued by the Assessing Officer remained non-complied with. The Assessing Officer has recorded that despite issuance of notice u/s 148, notices u/s 142(1), reminder letters and show cause notices, the assessee failed to furnish relevant details and supporting evidences. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and section 144B of the Act determining total income at Rs.61,44,000/- by making addition of Rs.6,00,000/- u/s 69A towards unexplained cash deposits, addition of Rs.2,00,000/- u/s 69C towards unexplained expenditure and addition of Rs.53,44,000/- under the head short term capital gain. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after considering material available on record upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) has specifically recorded that even during appellate proceedings the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidences such as cash flow statement, proof regarding source of deposits and expenditure,

ITA No.676/M/2026 Sanjeev Prabhakar Patil purchase deed, proof of cost of acquisition or evidence to establish that land sold was agricultural land not chargeable to tax. 6. Before us, the Ld. AR submitted that the reopening itself is invalid in law. It was argued that the reassessment proceedings pertain to A.Y. 2015-16 and the notice u/s 148 having been issued on 04.04.2022 under the substituted reassessment provisions introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2021 is barred by limitation. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that reassessment for A.Y. 2015-16 cannot survive. It was further submitted that in para 19 (f) of the judgment, the concession made by the Ld. Attorney General regarding withdrawal of notices for A.Y. 2015-16 has been recorded. The Ld. AR accordingly submitted that the reassessment proceedings deserve to be quashed. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee is a non-filer and had not cooperated either during proceedings u/s 148A or during assessment proceedings. It was further submitted that the assessee has raised legal grounds before the Tribunal without bringing complete material relating to proceedings u/s 148A(b) and order passed u/s 148A(d). The Ld. DR submitted that the matter may, at best, be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for proper adjudication. 8. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the assessee had not filed return of income for the year under consideration. The assessment order clearly records that even during proceedings initiated u/s 148A, the assessee did not avail the opportunity provided by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, during reassessment proceedings also, despite repeated notices and opportunities, the assessee failed to furnish

ITA No.676/M/2026 Sanjeev Prabhakar Patil requisite details and supporting evidences, compelling the Assessing Officer to complete assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 9. We further note that the Ld. CIT(A), while confirming additions, has categorically recorded that even during appellate proceedings the assessee failed to substantiate his claim by furnishing supporting documentary evidences. The appellate order clearly demonstrates that neither factual details nor evidences regarding source of deposits, source of expenditure and nature of land sold were properly placed before the lower authorities. 10. Before us, elaborate legal grounds challenging reopening proceedings have been raised. However, the assessment order / Ld CIT(A) order does not contain complete factual material relating to proceedings u/s 148A(b)or contents of order passed u/s 148A(d) . The Ld AR has filled copy of 148A(b) notice which was issued on 19.03.2022 and 148A(d) order with approval of PCCIT , which needs examination. In the absence of complete jurisdictional facts, adjudication of the legal grounds raised by the assessee would not be possible in proper perspective. 11. The Ld. AR has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal and argued that reopening for A.Y. 2015-16 is impermissible. However, prima facie, it is observed that the said judgment arose in the context of reassessment notices issued pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal wherein notices issued under old reassessment provisions after 01.04.2021 were treated as notices issued u/s 148A(b). Therefore, applicability of the said judgment to the peculiar facts of the present case would require examination of complete jurisdictional facts including nature of notice issued,

ITA No.676/M/2026 Sanjeev Prabhakar Patil proceedings undertaken by the Assessing Officer and compliance with statutory requirements under substituted reassessment provisions.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (JAGADISH) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated: 11/05/2026 Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary 5

ITA No.676/M/2026 Sanjeev Prabhakar Patil

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, I.T.A.T. By order

(Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai