TRISHLADEVI MUKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(1)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1380/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 April 2026AY 2017-186 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the alleged escapement of income did not meet the threshold for extended limitation under Section 149(1)(b). Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges the reopening of assessment and a subsequent addition of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The notice for reopening was issued beyond the three-year limitation period.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment beyond the normal time limit, specifically whether the conditions for invoking the extended period under Section 149(1)(b) were met.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 149(1)(b),Section 148,Section 69A,Section 151A,Section 151,Section 115BBE,Section 271AAC(1),Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi
For Respondent: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13/04/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H (SMC)” MUMBAI

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

ITA No. 1380/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Trishladevi Mukesh Jain, ITO Ward 42(1)(5), C/O CA Himanshu Gandhi, 16th Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Vs. floor, D Wing, Trade World Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Building, Kamala Mills Mumbai-400051. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013. PAN NO. ACUPJ 3215 G Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Mr. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue by : Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 13/04/2026 : 20/04/2026 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of assessment u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad-in-law and required to be quashed

Trishladevi Mukesh Jain Trishladevi Mukesh Jain 2 ITA No. 1380/MUM/2026 ITA No. 1380/MUM/2026

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of assessment without considering the erred in confirming reopening of assessment without considering the erred in confirming reopening of assessment without considering the fact that the proceedings for AY 2017 he proceedings for AY 2017-18 are time barred as per 18 are time barred as per section 149(1)(b) of Income Tax Act. 1961 section 149(1)(b) of Income Tax Act. 1961 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of assessment without considering the erred in confirming reopening of assessment without considering the erred in confirming reopening of assessment without considering the fact that the notice for fact that the notice for reopening u/s 148 was issued by reopening u/s 148 was issued by Jurisdictional assessing officer which is in violation of Faceless Jurisdictional assessing officer which is in violation of Faceless Jurisdictional assessing officer which is in violation of Faceless Assessment Scheme formulated under section 151A of Income Tax Assessment Scheme formulated under section 151A of Income Tax Assessment Scheme formulated under section 151A of Income Tax Act, 1961 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confi erred in confirming issue of notice u/s 148 without considering the rming issue of notice u/s 148 without considering the fact that the notice issued without mentioning fact that the notice issued without mentioning DIN number on notice DIN number on notice which is in violation of CBDT Circular which is in violation of CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2019 dated No. 19 of 2019 dated 14.08.2019 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming issue of notice u/s 148 without obtaining proper erred in confirming issue of notice u/s 148 without obtaining proper erred in confirming issue of notice u/s 148 without obtaining proper approval from appropriate authority under section 151 of Income Tax approval from appropriate authority under section 151 of Income Tax approval from appropriate authority under section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of erred in confirming addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Income u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the cash payment made to M/s Shivam Autozone Tax Act, 1961 for the cash payment made to M/s Shivam Autozone Tax Act, 1961 for the cash payment made to M/s Shivam Autozone (India) Pvt Ltd for purchase of Car without considering the fact that (India) Pvt Ltd for purchase of Car without considering the fact that (India) Pvt Ltd for purchase of Car without considering the fact that the cash was paid from the available cash balance as on the cash was paid from the available cash balance as on the cash was paid from the available cash balance as on 01.11.2016. 7. On the facts an 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. d circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying tax under the provisions of section erred in levying tax under the provisions of section 115BBE of Income 115BBE of Income Tax act, 1961 on addition made under section 69A of Income Tax Act, Tax act, 1961 on addition made under section 69A of Income Tax Act, Tax act, 1961 on addition made under section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the L 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the L 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of Income Tax erred in levying penalty u/s 271AAC(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in charging interest u/s 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. erred in charging interest u/s 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. erred in charging interest u/s 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee has raised multiple grounds challenging both the The Assessee has raised multiple grounds challenging both the The Assessee has raised multiple grounds challenging both the jurisdictional validity of the reassessment and the substantive jurisdictional validity of the reassessment and the substantive jurisdictional validity of the reassessment and the substantive

Trishladevi Mukesh Jain Trishladevi Mukesh Jain 3 ITA No. 1380/MUM/2026 ITA No. 1380/MUM/2026

addition of ₹6,00,000/ 6,00,000/- made under Section 69A of the Income made under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

2.1 At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee submitted that there is a delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal. The assessed there is a delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal. there is a delay of 69 days in filing the present appeal. in sworn affidavit deposed that the delay was occasioned by a bona in sworn affidavit deposed that the delay was occasioned by a in sworn affidavit deposed that the delay was occasioned by a fide misunderstanding regarding the mandate of his previous misunderstanding regarding the mandate of his previous misunderstanding regarding the mandate of his previous Authorized Representative (AR). T Authorized Representative (AR). The Appellant was under the he Appellant was under the impression impression impression that that that the the the AR AR AR would would would fulfill fulfill fulfill the the the statutory statutory statutory filing filing filing requirements; however, it transpired that the AR’s mandate was requirements; however, it transpired that the AR’s mandate was requirements; however, it transpired that the AR’s mandate was limited to the first appellate stage. Upon discovering this omission, limited to the first appellate stage. Upon discovering this omission, limited to the first appellate stage. Upon discovering this omission, the assessee promptly engaged new coun the assessee promptly engaged new counsel to file the present sel to file the present appeal. We find that the delay was neither intentional nor a result appeal. We find that the delay was neither intentional nor a result appeal. We find that the delay was neither intentional nor a result of gross negligence. Applying the doctrine of of gross negligence. Applying the doctrine of substantial justice substantial justice, we accept the explanation as ‘sufficient cause’ and hereby condone the accept the explanation as ‘sufficient cause’ and hereby condone the accept the explanation as ‘sufficient cause’ and hereby condone the delay of 69 days. The appe delay of 69 days. The appeal is admitted for adjudication al is admitted for adjudication

3.

The pivotal issue for our consideration is the jurisdictional The pivotal issue for our consideration is the jurisdictional The pivotal issue for our consideration is the jurisdictional validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. The Appellant contends that the reassessment proceedings are time- Appellant contends that the reassessment proceedings are time Appellant contends that the reassessment proceedings are time barred by virtue of the limitation period prescribed under Section barred by virtue of the limitation period prescribed under Section barred by virtue of the limitation period prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. 49(1)(b) of the Act. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the ground No. 2 of the appeal challenging that in the referred to the ground No. 2 of the appeal challenging that in the referred to the ground No. 2 of the appeal challenging that in the instant case the information constituting cause for reopening u/s the information constituting cause for reopening u/s the information constituting cause for reopening u/s 147 was of Rs.6 lakhs only and therefore, as per the provision of 147 was of Rs.6 lakhs only and therefore, as per the provi 147 was of Rs.6 lakhs only and therefore, as per the provi section 149(1)(b) of the Act reopening could not have been initiated section 149(1)(b) of the Act reopening could not have been initiated section 149(1)(b) of the Act reopening could not have been initiated

Trishladevi Mukesh Jain Trishladevi Mukesh Jain 4 ITA No. 1380/MUM/2026 ITA No. 1380/MUM/2026

beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The ld. counsel submitted that notice u/s 148 of assessment year. The ld. counsel submitted that notice u/s 148 of assessment year. The ld. counsel submitted that notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued on 13.07.2022 whereas assessment year the Act has been issued on 13.07.2022 whereas asses the Act has been issued on 13.07.2022 whereas asses involved is 2017-18 and thus the notice u/s 148 of the Act has 18 and thus the notice u/s 148 of the Act has 18 and thus the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued beyond the period of three years been issued beyond the period of three years from from the end of the assessment year and hence the notice issued is void ab initio. assessment year and hence the notice issued is void ab initio. assessment year and hence the notice issued is void ab initio.

4.

We find that before the Ld. CIT(A) this issue We find that before the Ld. CIT(A) this issue We find that before the Ld. CIT(A) this issue of challenging validity of reassessment validity of reassessment was not raised hence no finding has given o finding has given by the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of During the course of hearing, the ld counsel pleaded orally for admitting the legal ground of the assessee as pleaded orally for admitting the legal ground of the assessee as pleaded orally for admitting the legal ground of the assessee as additional ground. The ld DR did not object for raising the said additional ground. The ld DR did not object for r additional ground. The ld DR did not object for r ground by way of additional ground. As the ground raised is purely ground by way of additional ground. As the ground raised is purely ground by way of additional ground. As the ground raised is purely legal and not requiring investigation of fresh facts, accordingly after legal and not requiring investigation of fresh facts, accordingly after legal and not requiring investigation of fresh facts, accordingly after hearing hearing hearing parties, parties, parties, the the the additional additional additional ground ground ground was was was admitted admitted admitted for for for adjudication.

5.

The undisputed facts are th The undisputed facts are that the notice under Section 148 at the notice under Section 148 was issued on 13.07.2022 13.07.2022 for the Assessment Year for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The singular basis for reopening the assessment was an alleged singular basis for reopening the assessment was an alleged singular basis for reopening the assessment was an alleged unexplained cash expenditure of ₹6,00,000/- paid to M/s Shivam unexplained cash expenditure of paid to M/s Shivam Autozone (India) Pvt. Ltd. Autozone (India) Pvt. Ltd.

5.1 We have heard the rival submissions and scrutinized the We have heard the rival submissions and scrutinized the We have heard the rival submissions and scrutinized the statutory provisions governing the limitation period for reopening statutory provisions governing the limitation period for reopening statutory provisions governing the limitation period for reopening assessments. The Finance Act, 2021, introduced a rigorous timeline assessments. The Finance Act, 2021, introduced a rigorous timeline assessments. The Finance Act, 2021, introduced a rigorous timeline

Trishladevi Mukesh Jain Trishladevi Mukesh Jain 5 ITA No. 1380/MUM/2026 ITA No. 1380/MUM/2026

for the issuance of notices under Section 148. for the issuance of notices under Section 148. On plain reading of On plain reading of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, of the Act, it is evident that no notice under no notice under Section 148 can be issued after the expiry of three years from the end Section 148 can be issued after the expiry of three years from the end Section 148 can be issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession evidence which reveals that the income escaping his possession evidence which reveals that the inco his possession evidence which reveals that the inco assessment, represented in the form of an asset, expenditure, or an assessment, represented in the form of an asset, expenditure, or an assessment, represented in the form of an asset, expenditure, or an entry in the books, amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more.

5.2 In the instant case, the relevant Assessment Year is 2017 In the instant case, the relevant Assessment Year is 2017 In the instant case, the relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18, which ended on 31.03.2018. The normal three which ended on 31.03.2018. The normal three- -year limitation period expired on 31.03.2021 31.03.2021. To invoke the extended limitation . To invoke the extended limitation period of up to ten years, the Revenue must demonstrate that the period of up to ten years, the Revenue must demonstrate that the period of up to ten years, the Revenue must demonstrate that the ed escapement meets the high threshold of ₹50,00,000/ alleged escapement meets the high threshold of 50,00,000/-.

5.3 From a perusal of the information for reopening and the From a perusal of the information for reopening and the From a perusal of the information for reopening and the findings on merit, it is manifest that the quantum of the alleged findings on merit, it is manifest that the quantum of the alleged findings on merit, it is manifest that the quantum of the alleged escapement is merely ₹6,00,000/-. This figure falls significantly escapement is merely . This figure falls significantly the mandatory ₹50 lakh threshold required to validate a short of the mandatory 50 lakh threshold required to validate a notice issued beyond the three notice issued beyond the three-year mark. The notice issued on The notice issued on 13.07.2022 is clearly outside the three 13.07.2022 is clearly outside the three-year window. Since the year window. Since the statutory monetary threshold for the extended period is not met, the statutory monetary threshold for the extended period is not met, the statutory monetary threshold for the extended period is not met, the Assessing Officer lacked the jurisdiction to initiate reassessment ssing Officer lacked the jurisdiction to initiate reassessment ssing Officer lacked the jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings. It is a settled principle that where a jurisdictional proceedings. It is a settled principle that where a jurisdictional proceedings. It is a settled principle that where a jurisdictional

Trishladevi Mukesh Jain Trishladevi Mukesh Jain 6 ITA No. 1380/MUM/2026 ITA No. 1380/MUM/2026

notice is void ab initio ab initio, the entire superstructure of the assessment , the entire superstructure of the assessment built upon it must collapse. built upon it must collapse.

5.4 Accordingly, Accordingly, Accordingly, the the the reassessment reassessment reassessment proceedings proceedings proceedings are are are hereby hereby hereby quashed. As the appeal is being allowed on jurisdictional grounds, . As the appeal is being allowed on jurisdictional grounds, . As the appeal is being allowed on jurisdictional grounds, we find it unnecessary to adjudicate the remaining grounds on the we find it unnecessary to adjudicate the remaining grounds on the we find it unnecessary to adjudicate the remaining grounds on the merits of the addition. merits of the addition.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. is allowed.

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. 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 →