INCOME TAX OFFICE 41 4 1, MUMBAI vs. ASHWIN POPATLAL SHAH, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8604/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 April 20269 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without adhering to the procedural safeguards of Rule 46A, which requires allowing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine additional evidence and submit a remand report. The Tribunal also noted the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the assessee's ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,01,73,880/- for alleged non-genuine purchases. The CIT(A) deleted this addition. The Revenue appealed, arguing the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by accepting additional evidence without proper verification and a remand report.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition without following the mandatory procedure under Rule 46A for admitting additional evidence and whether the validity of reassessment proceedings was properly adjudicated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21

ITO 41(4)(1), Ashwin Popatlal Shah, 854A, 8th floor, Kautilya 601, 51, Shanti Sadan Jain Vs. Bhavan BKC Bandra East, Mandir Road No. 4 Jawahar Mumbai-400051. Nagar Goregaon West, Mumbai-400063. PAN NO. AAJPS 7395 D Appellant Respondent

CO No. 95/MUM/2026 (Arising out of ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025) Assessment Year: 2020-21

Ashwin Popatlal Shah, ITO 41(4)(1), 601, 51, Shanti Sadan Jain 854A, 8th floor, Kautilya Bhavan Mandir Road No. 4 Jawahar Vs. BKC Bandra East, Nagar Goregaon West, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400063. PAN NO. AAJPS 7395 D Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR (Virtually appeared)

: 09/04/2026 Date of Hearing : 20/04/2026 Date of pronouncement

Ashwin Popatlal Shah 2 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025 & CO 95/M/2026 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025

ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the Revenue and cross This appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the objection by the assessee are directed against order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the assessee are directed against order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the assessee are directed against order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the National Faceless Ld. Commissioner of Income Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for ass Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for ass 2020-21.

2.

The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as The grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under:

1.

Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in 1. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in 1. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting entire addition of Rs. entire addition of Rs. 2,01,73,880/ 2,01,73,880/- made by the A.O. 2. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in the order by violating the mandatory law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in the order by violating the mandatory law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in the order by violating the mandatory procedure under Rule 46A (as per para 5.6 of the CIT(A) order) and procedure under Rule 46A (as per para 5.6 of the CIT(A) order) and procedure under Rule 46A (as per para 5.6 of the CIT(A) order) and thus failed to conduct verification and accepted documen thus failed to conduct verification and accepted documen thus failed to conduct verification and accepted documents without enquiry during appellate proceedings. enquiry during appellate proceedings. 3. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in 3. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in 3. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition by accepting law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition by accepting law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition by accepting the assessee's explanation without any independent verification, the assessee's explanation without any independent verification, the assessee's explanation without any independent verification, and without calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer to out calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer to out calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer to verify the fresh evidences filed during the appellate proceedings, verify the fresh evidences filed during the appellate proceedings, verify the fresh evidences filed during the appellate proceedings, thereby violating Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. thereby violating Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 4. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in 4. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in 4. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that there was a non d.CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that there was a non d.CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that there was a non- compliance of the purchase party of the assessee, though the detail compliance of the purchase party of the assessee, though the detail compliance of the purchase party of the assessee, though the detail of corresponding purchase voucher of diamond which were sold to of corresponding purchase voucher of diamond which were sold to of corresponding purchase voucher of diamond which were sold to the assessee, which were called for u/s 133(6) of the Act, were not the assessee, which were called for u/s 133(6) of the Act, were not the assessee, which were called for u/s 133(6) of the Act, were not submitted during assessment proceedings as well as appellate submitted during assessment proceedings as well as appellate submitted during assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings by the purchase party, which goes to the root of proceedings by the purchase party, which goes to the root of proceedings by the purchase party, which goes to the root of genuineness of purchase. genuineness of purchase. 5. We pray to add, alter, amend, delete and/or modify any or all of 5. We pray to add, alter, amend, delete and/or modify any or all of 5. We pray to add, alter, amend, delete and/or modify any or all of the aforesaid grounds of appeal either a the aforesaid grounds of appeal either at the time of hearing or at t the time of hearing or at any time before the date of hearing. any time before the date of hearing.

Ashwin Popatlal Shah 3 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025 & CO 95/M/2026 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025

2.1 The grounds raised by the assessee in cross The grounds raised by the assessee in cross The grounds raised by the assessee in cross-objection is reproduced as under: reproduced as under:

1.

Ground 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, Ground 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, Ground 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that reas CIT(A) failed to appreciate that reassessment proceeding sessment proceeding initiated under section 147 is bad in law and deserved to be initiated under section 147 is bad in law and deserved to be initiated under section 147 is bad in law and deserved to be quashed. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the the assessee, an he assessee, an individual engaged in the business of trading in cut and polished as individual engaged in the business of trading in cut and polished as individual engaged in the business of trading in cut and polished as well as rough diamonds, filed the return of income declaring total well as rough diamonds, filed the return of income declaring total well as rough diamonds, filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹8,47,390/ 8,47,390/-. Subsequently, based on information . Subsequently, based on information suggesting suggesting suggesting that that that the the the assessee assessee assessee had had had allegedly allegedly allegedly entered ent ent into accommodation transactions accommodation transactions during the relevant financial year during the relevant financial year by way of bogus purchases way of bogus purchases of gems/jewellery from PIHU Gems LLP, of gems/jewellery from PIHU Gems LLP, Sanjay Nareshchandra Sheth and Mitesh Mahesh Shah for a total Sanjay Nareshchandra Sheth and Mitesh Mahesh Shah for a total Sanjay Nareshchandra Sheth and Mitesh Mahesh Shah for a total purchase consideration of Rs.2,01,73,880/ purchase consideration of Rs.2,01,73,880/- and and reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act. Pursuant proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act. proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act. thereto, following due procedure under the provisions of the Act, the following due procedure under the provisions of the Act, the following due procedure under the provisions of the Act, the ld AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2024 and the ld AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2024 ld AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2024 reassessment reassessment reassessment was was was completed completed completed by by by the the the Assessing Assessing Assessing Officer Officer Officer on on on - on account of 26/03/2025 making an addition of 6/03/2025 making an addition of ₹2,01,73,880/- alleged non-genuine purchases. genuine purchases.

4.

In appeal, the Learned CIT(A) deleted the entire addition on In appeal, the Learned CIT(A) deleted the entire addition on In appeal, the Learned CIT(A) deleted the entire addition on merits after considering submissions and documentary evidences merits after considering submissions and documentary evidences merits after considering submissions and documentary evidences furnished by the assessee, including furnished by the assessee, including confirmations, invoices, and confirmations, invoices, and income-tax returns of the alleged counterparties. However, the tax returns of the alleged counterparties. However, the tax returns of the alleged counterparties. However, the

Ashwin Popatlal Shah 4 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025 & CO 95/M/2026 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025

ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings was not adjudicated reassessment proceedings was not adjudicated.

5.

The Revenue has assailed the impugned order primarily on The Revenue has assailed the impugned order primarily on The Revenue has assailed the impugned order primarily on the ground that the Learned CIT(A) admitted and relied upon additional ground that the Learned CIT(A) admitted and relied upon additional ground that the Learned CIT(A) admitted and relied upon additional evidences without complying with the mandatory procedure evidences without complying with the mandatory procedure evidences without complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and tax Rules, 1962, and without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine such evidences. The assessee, by way of cross The assessee, by way of cross The assessee, by way of cross-objection, has challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings, contending challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings, contending challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings, contending that the same is bad in law. that the same is bad in law.

6.

We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. We the relevant materials on record. We find that one of the main find that one of the main grievance of the Revenue grievance of the Revenue raised in ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal raised in ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal is that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on merit after is that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on merit after is that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on merit after considering the additional evidences without following the due considering the additional evidences without following the considering the additional evidences without following the process of Rule 46A of the Income process of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the ax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) and therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) might be set aside. Rules’) and therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) might be set aside. Rules’) and therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) might be set aside. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

“5.6 After careful consideration of the facts on record, the “5.6 After careful consideration of the facts on record, the “5.6 After careful consideration of the facts on record, the assessment order, and the detailed written submissions along with assessment order, and the detailed written submissions along with assessment order, and the detailed written submissions along with the paper book filed by the appellant vide submission dated the paper book filed by the appellant vide submission dated the paper book filed by the appellant vide submission dated 14.10.2025, I find merit in the contentions of the appellant. The 14.10.2025, I find merit in the contentions of the appellant. The 14.10.2025, I find merit in the contentions of the appellant. The paper book was examined in detail. Part er book was examined in detail. Part-I of the paper book (pages I of the paper book (pages 1-77) contains the submissions and evidences already filed during 77) contains the submissions and evidences already filed during 77) contains the submissions and evidences already filed during the assessment proceedings, whereas from pages 77 onwards, the the assessment proceedings, whereas from pages 77 onwards, the the assessment proceedings, whereas from pages 77 onwards, the appellant has placed on record the additional supporting eviden appellant has placed on record the additional supporting eviden appellant has placed on record the additional supporting evidences

Ashwin Popatlal Shah 5 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025 & CO 95/M/2026 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025

substantiating substantiating substantiating the the the genuineness genuineness genuineness of of of the the the impugned impugned impugned purchase purchase purchase transactions. 5.7 Specifically, the appellant has furnished (i) confirmation of 5.7 Specifically, the appellant has furnished (i) confirmation of 5.7 Specifically, the appellant has furnished (i) confirmation of accounts with M/s. Pihu Gems LLP along with copies of accounts with M/s. Pihu Gems LLP along with copies of accounts with M/s. Pihu Gems LLP along with copies of corresponding sales invoices (pages 78 corresponding sales invoices (pages 78-83) reflecting sales 83) reflecting sales aggregating to 43,34,591/ gregating to 43,34,591/-; (ii) confirmation of accounts with M/s. ; (ii) confirmation of accounts with M/s. Sanjay Gems showing purchases of 54,00,915/ Sanjay Gems showing purchases of 54,00,915/- (page 91); and (iii) (page 91); and (iii) confirmation of accounts with M/s. Neev Diamonds evidencing confirmation of accounts with M/s. Neev Diamonds evidencing confirmation of accounts with M/s. Neev Diamonds evidencing purchases aggregating to 1,24,27,505/ purchases aggregating to 1,24,27,505/- (page 96). Copies of the (page 96). Copies of the income-tax returns filed by the aforesaid parties have also been tax returns filed by the aforesaid parties have also been tax returns filed by the aforesaid parties have also been furnished in the paper book to corroborate the existence and identity furnished in the paper book to corroborate the existence and identity furnished in the paper book to corroborate the existence and identity of the counterparties. On perusal, these evidences clearly establish of the counterparties. On perusal, these evidences clearly establish of the counterparties. On perusal, these evidences clearly establish that the transactions were duly accounted for in the that the transactions were duly accounted for in the regular books of account, supported by verifiable documentary records, and of account, supported by verifiable documentary records, and of account, supported by verifiable documentary records, and routed through normal banking channels. routed through normal banking channels. 5.8 It is also noted that the appellant has, during the appellate during the appellate 5.8 It is also noted that the appellant has, proceedings, produced all the documents and confirmations proceedings, produced all the documents and confirmations proceedings, produced all the documents and confirmations that were called that were called for by the Assessing Officer but could not be for by the Assessing Officer but could not be furnished at the assessment stage. furnished at the assessment stage. The confirmations and The confirmations and supporting documents substantiate the genuineness of the purchase supporting documents substantiate the genuineness of the purchase supporting documents substantiate the genuineness of the purchase and sales transactions in question and dispel the allegation of and sales transactions in question and dispel the allegation of and sales transactions in question and dispel the allegation of accommodation entries accommodation entries or bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer or bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer has not brought any adverse material on record to controvert or has not brought any adverse material on record to controvert or has not brought any adverse material on record to controvert or disprove these evidences. disprove these evidences. 5.9 In view of the above, I am satisfied that the appellant has 5.9 In view of the above, I am satisfied that the appellant has 5.9 In view of the above, I am satisfied that the appellant has successfully demonstrated the identity and existence of the successfully demonstrated the identity and existence of the successfully demonstrated the identity and existence of the concerned parties, the genuineness of the transactions, and the concerned parties, the genuineness of the transactions, and the concerned parties, the genuineness of the transactions, and the correctness of the amounts recorded. The disallowance made on correctness of the amounts recorded. The disallowance made on correctness of the amounts recorded. The disallowance made on account of alleged bogus purchases and consequent addition to account of alleged bogus purchases and consequent addition to account of alleged bogus purchases and consequent addition to income is, therefore, not sustainable in law or on facts. Accordingl income is, therefore, not sustainable in law or on facts. Accordingl income is, therefore, not sustainable in law or on facts. Accordingly, the addition of 2,01,73,880/ the addition of 2,01,73,880/- made by the Assessing Officer is made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted. Hence, all the grounds of appeal stands hereby deleted. Hence, all the grounds of appeal stands hereby deleted. Hence, all the grounds of appeal stands ALLOWED.” ( emphasis supplied externally) ( emphasis supplied externally) 6.1 On perusal of the above finding, it is evidence that in On perusal of the above finding, it is evidence that in On perusal of the above finding, it is evidence that in paragraph 5.8, the Ld. CIT(A) hi 5.8, the Ld. CIT(A) himself has mentioned that assessee mself has mentioned that assessee had produced certain documents and confirmation that were called had produced certain documents and confirmation that were called had produced certain documents and confirmation that were called for by the Assessing Officer but could not be furnished at the for by the Assessing Officer but could not be furnished at the for by the Assessing Officer but could not be furnished at the

Ashwin Popatlal Shah 6 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025 & CO 95/M/2026 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025

assessment stage. Further, t Further, the Ld. CIT(A) in paragraph graph 5.3 of the impugned order has also reco impugned order has also recorded that the assessee failed to rded that the assessee failed to provide corresponding purchase vouchers of Shri Sanjay Naresh provide corresponding purchase vouchers of Shri Sanjay Naresh provide corresponding purchase vouchers of Shri Sanjay Naresh Chandra Seth allegedly due to short period of the time. The relevant Chandra Seth allegedly due to short period of the time. The relevant Chandra Seth allegedly due to short period of the time. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

“5.3 It is observed from the assessment or “5.3 It is observed from the assessment order that the appellant has der that the appellant has failed to furnish the complete details, which could prove the failed to furnish the complete details, which could prove the failed to furnish the complete details, which could prove the genuineness of the transactions. The appellant provided the Axix genuineness of the transactions. The appellant provided the Axix genuineness of the transactions. The appellant provided the Axix Bank statement reflecting Pihu Gems statement, Neev diamond Bank statement reflecting Pihu Gems statement, Neev diamond Bank statement reflecting Pihu Gems statement, Neev diamond confirmation of accounts, Neev ITR, Sanjay confirmation of accounts, Neev ITR, Sanjay Gems Confirmation and Gems Confirmation and details of corresponding purchases of gems. Thereafter, notice u/s details of corresponding purchases of gems. Thereafter, notice u/s details of corresponding purchases of gems. Thereafter, notice u/s 133(6) were issued and served to third parties on 13.03.2025. 133(6) were issued and served to third parties on 13.03.2025. 133(6) were issued and served to third parties on 13.03.2025. However, as the third parties failed to comply with the notice However, as the third parties failed to comply with the notice However, as the third parties failed to comply with the notice u/s.133 (6) of the I.T. u/s.133 (6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Summons u/s.131(c) of the I.T.Act, s u/s.131(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961on 14.03. 2025 to furnish the details as mentioned in the 1961on 14.03. 2025 to furnish the details as mentioned in the 1961on 14.03. 2025 to furnish the details as mentioned in the summon. In response to the summon, only summon. In response to the summon, only Sanjay Naresh Chandra Seth furnished details along with sales Sanjay Naresh Chandra Seth furnished details along with sales Sanjay Naresh Chandra Seth furnished details along with sales vouchers of the gems sold to the assessee but failed to provide vouchers of the gems sold to the assessee but failed to provide vouchers of the gems sold to the assessee but failed to provide the corresponding purchase vouchers of the Gems which were sold to corresponding purchase vouchers of the Gems which were sold to corresponding purchase vouchers of the Gems which were sold to the assessee; and other party did not provide the details stating the assessee; and other party did not provide the details stating the assessee; and other party did not provide the details stating that due to short period of time the documents could not be that due to short period of time the documents could not be that due to short period of time the documents could not be gathered.” ( emphasis supplied externally) ( emphasis supplied externally) 6.2 Upon a perusal Upon a perusal of paragraphs 5.6 and 5.8 of the impugned of paragraphs 5.6 and 5.8 of the impugned order as reproduced above as reproduced above, it is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) accepted , it is evident that the Ld. CIT(A) accepted fresh evidence (i.e. confirmations and ITRs of third parties) which, confirmations and ITRs of third parties) which, confirmations and ITRs of third parties) which, by the Ld. CIT(A)’s own admission, were not available during the by the Ld. CIT(A)’s own admission, were not available during the by the Ld. CIT(A)’s own admission, were not available during the assessment stage.

6.3 The Rule 46A of the Rules is not a mere technicality but a The Rule 46A of the Rules is not a mere technicality but a The Rule 46A of the Rules is not a mere technicality but a cornerstone of natural justice in tax jurisprudence. It mandates cornerstone of natural justice in tax jurisprudence. It mandates cornerstone of natural justice in tax jurisprudence. It mandates that when the First Appellate Authority admits evidence not that when the First Appellate Authority admits evidence not that when the First Appellate Authority admits evidence not

Ashwin Popatlal Shah 7 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025 & CO 95/M/2026 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025

produced before the AO, it produced before the AO, it must grant the AO a reasonable grant the AO a reasonable opportunity to examine such evidence or file a remand report. By opportunity to examine such evidence or file a remand report. By opportunity to examine such evidence or file a remand report. By failing to seek a remand report or provide the AO with an failing to seek a remand report or provide the AO with an failing to seek a remand report or provide the AO with an opportunity to rebut the new documentation, the Ld. CIT(A) has opportunity to rebut the new documentation, the Ld. CIT(A) has opportunity to rebut the new documentation, the Ld. CIT(A) has bypassed bypassed bypassed the the the statutory statutory statutory check check check and and and balance balance balance me mechanism. me Admissibility of evidence at the appellate stage is subject to the Admissibility of evidence at the appellate stage is subject to the Admissibility of evidence at the appellate stage is subject to the rigorous procedural safeguards of Rule 46A. An order passed in rigorous procedural safeguards of Rule 46A. An order passed in rigorous procedural safeguards of Rule 46A. An order passed in breach of this rule suffers from a fundamental procedural infirmity, breach of this rule suffers from a fundamental procedural infirmity, breach of this rule suffers from a fundamental procedural infirmity, as the Revenue is deprived of its right to verif as the Revenue is deprived of its right to verify the veracity of y the veracity of documents that effectively reverse the assessment. Thus, the Ld. documents that effectively reverse the assessment. documents that effectively reverse the assessment. CIT(A) has not followed the procedure of the Rule 46A of Rules CIT(A) has not followed the procedure of the Rule 46A of Rules CIT(A) has not followed the procedure of the Rule 46A of Rules provided for admitting of the additional evidence which were not provided for admitting of the additional evidence which were not provided for admitting of the additional evidence which were not filed before the Ld. Assessing Officer. filed before the Ld. Assessing Officer.

6.4 Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Learned ccordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Learned ccordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Learned CIT(A) on the issue of deletion of addition and restore the matter to CIT(A) on the issue of deletion of addition and restore the matter to CIT(A) on the issue of deletion of addition and restore the matter to his file with a direction to: his file with a direction to: (i) consider the additional evidences consider the additional evidences strictly in accordance with Rule 46A of the Income strictly in accordance with Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rule tax Rules, 1962; (ii) afford a reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer to afford a reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer to afford a reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the evidences and submit a remand report; and (iii) examine the evidences and submit a remand report; and examine the evidences and submit a remand report; and thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh on merits in accordance with thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh on merits in accordance with thereafter adjudicate the issue afresh on merits in accordance with law.

6.5 Insofar as the cross Insofar as the cross-objection filed by the assessee is objection filed by the assessee is concerned, it is observed that the Learned CIT(A) has failed to concerned, it is observed that the Learned CIT(A) has failed to concerned, it is observed that the Learned CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate the ground challenging the validity of reassessment adjudicate the ground challenging the validity of reassessment adjudicate the ground challenging the validity of reassessment

Ashwin Popatlal Shah 8 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025 & CO 95/M/2026 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025

proceedings. This omission goes to the root of the matter. The proceedings. This omission goes to the root of the matter. The proceedings. This omission goes to the root of the matter. The Learned CIT(A) is duty T(A) is duty-bound to adjudicate all grounds raised bound to adjudicate all grounds raised before him. Accordingly, we direct the Learned CIT(A) to adjudicate before him. Accordingly, we direct the Learned CIT(A) to adjudicate before him. Accordingly, we direct the Learned CIT(A) to adjudicate the ground relating to the validity of reassessment proceedings the ground relating to the validity of reassessment proceedings the ground relating to the validity of reassessment proceedings afresh, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to afresh, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to afresh, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the assessee.

6.6 Accordingly, we conclude that i Accordingly, we conclude that in view of the procedural lapses n view of the procedural lapses identified above, we find it just and proper to set aside the identified above, we find it just and proper to set aside the identified above, we find it just and proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication for fresh adjudication as directed above.

6.7 Consequently, Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the Revenue’s appeal nsequently, Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the Revenue’s appeal nsequently, Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the Revenue’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes allowed for statistical purposes. The remaining grounds on . The remaining grounds on merits are rendered academic at this stage. The Cross-Objection of merits are rendered academic at this stage. The Cross merits are rendered academic at this stage. The Cross the Assessee is likewise the Assessee is likewise allowed for statistical purposes allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross esult, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross- esult, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the Assessee are Objection of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes allowed for statistical purposes

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 20/04/2026. /04/2026. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/ (ANIKESH BANERJEE ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 20/04/2026 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Ashwin Popatlal Shah 9 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025 & CO 95/M/2026 ITA No. 8604/MUM/2025

Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →