MUKESH JHUNJHUNWALA,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 42(2)(1), BANDRA EAST

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2515/MUM/2026 (AY:2019-20) Mukesh Jhunhunwala, 2B-304, vs. DCIT, Circle-42(2)(1), Bandra Kurla Acme Complex, Off Link Road, Complex Bandra East, Mumbai-400 Goregaon West, Mumbai-400 104. 051. PAN/GIR No: ADPPJ2378C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Bhupendra Shah, CA Revenue by Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 30.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 08.06.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the National Faceless

Appeal Centre [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 31.12.2025 for the assessment year (AY)

2019-20.

“1. RE-OPENING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 • On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in initiating proceedings and passing an order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act without appreciating the fact that there was no incriminating material having direct link related to appellant. The assessment was purely based on assumption theory. • The re-opening is time barred since the notice u/s. 148 was issued in April 2023 i.e. after the expiry of 3 years from the end of the assessment Year A.Y. 2019-20. • Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant submits that though the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued in April, 2023, by virtue of third and fourth provisos to section 149(1) of the Act, the date of issue and service of notice shall be deemed to be 31.03.2023, i.e. within three years from the end 1

ITA No.2515/MUM/2026 Mukesh Jhunhunwala of the relevant assessment year 2019-20. Accordingly, as per provisions of section 153(2) of the Act, the time limit to complete the assessment initiated u/s 147 will be twelve months from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s. 148 of the Act was served. Therefore, in the present case, the time limit to complete the assessment proceeding would have been 31.03.2024 i.e. twelve months from the end of the financial year in which the notice u/s. 148 is (deemed to have been) served. Accordingly, the Appellant submits that the assessment proceeding concluded vide the Assessment order dated 07.01.2025 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B is time-barred and bad-in-law. • The appellant therefore prays that the proceedings and/or the order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act be quashed and held as void ab initio or otherwise bad in law, and/or disallowance made in the order be deleted. 2. ADDITION ON THE POINT OF DISALLOWABILITY OF DONATION GIVEN TO POLITICAL PARTY U/S. 80GGC AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,00,000/- • The Ld AO erred in making addition by disallowing the donation u/s. 80GGC of the Act, amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- on the basis of information received by the investigation department without conducting any independent verification/scrutiny of the said information. • The Ld. AO erred in making the disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/-u/s. 80GGC without considering the submissions made by the appellant from time to time. The addition is purely made on assumption theory. • The Ld. AO failed to prove any justified link or presence of the name of the appellant in any of the documents. The Ld. AO failed to provide evidence of routing of money back to appellant. The assessment was purely based on assumption. Hence we request your honour to delete the addition and obliges. • The Ld. AO did not give any opportunity to cross examine the person whose statement was relied to disallow the claim of the appellant. Without prejudice, 3. The Ld. AO erred in levying interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act. 4. Considering the above stated defects in framing order on the part of the Ld. AO, it can be said that the addition made by the Ld. AO is not true, valid and genuine and therefore deserves to be deleted. Hence, I humbly request your honour to delete the addition made by the Ld. AO and obliges. 5. Considering the above facts, the Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 270Aof the Act. 6. Your appellant reserves his right to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal.

ITA No.2515/MUM/2026 Mukesh Jhunhunwala 7. This appeal has been filed in time and may please be allowed in full. 8. A Detailed paper book along with case laws will be submitted at the time of hearing.”

ground of appeal in relation to ground No.1 already mentioned in Form No.36. IT

is submitted that the same is a pure legal revised ground. The revised grounds are

as below:

“a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) erred in reopening the assessment u/s 148 on 11.04.2023 in respect of Assessment Year 2019-20 (i.e., after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year) and is, therefore, the assessment order is null and void because the same is less than Rs.50 lakhs as per the judgment of Bombay H.C. in case of Naresh Shinde followed in Darshan Singh Bagga (Copy attached). b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) erred in obtaining approval of PCIT instead of Pr. CCIT, Mumbai after 3 years from the end of the Assessment Year 2019-20, which is bad in law as per the judgement of Aman Naeem Akhtar Ansari (Copy attached).”

3.1 Since the revised grounds are related to the original ground No.1 and are

legal issues, which can be decided on the basis of materials already available on

record, the same are admitted in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (229 ITR 383)

and decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers &

Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.).

for AY 2019-20 on 11.04.2023. The reasons for reopening was bogus donation of

Rs.2,00,000/- to Sardar Vallabhai Patel Party. After hearing the assessee, the AO

ITA No.2515/MUM/2026 Mukesh Jhunhunwala disallowed donation of Rs.2,00,000/- and added to the total income. On appeal,

the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Tribunal. The ld. AR has submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2019-

20 was issued on 11.04.2023, which was after 3 years from the end of the relevant

AY 2019-20. Further, the amount of income escaping assessment was only

Rs.2,00,000/-, which was less than Rs.50,00,000/- as required under the relevant

provisions of the Act. The approval for issue of notice u/s 148 was given by the

PCIT instead of the Pr. CCIT. Hence, the notice was bad in law and invalid.

Accordingly, the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 07.01.2025 is also invalid.

The Ld. AR relied on the decisions stated in the grounds of appeal.

ITA No.2515/MUM/2026 Mukesh Jhunhunwala terms of Section 151 of the Act, made it clear that the specified authority u/s 151(i) of the Act (new regime) could grant sanction till 30.06.2021 and not thereafter. In

the present case, order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act (new regime)

were issued on 11.04.2023, i.e., after 30.06.2021 with approval of the PCIT and not the Pr. CCIT. This has not been controverted by the Ld. Sr. DR. As per the judgement

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the authority

specified u/s 151(ii) was the Pr. CCIT and not Pr. CIT. Therefore, we hold that in absence of the approval from the specified authority u/s 151(ii) of the Act, the AO

lacked jurisdiction to pass order u/s 148A(d) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act

(new regime) for AY 2019-20. Therefore, the impugned order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act, both dated 11.04.2023 are quashed and set aside as being

bad in law. Resultantly, the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 07.01.2025 is

also quashed. 7.1 The issue can be decided from another aspect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

also held that the assessment can be reopened beyond 3 years but within 10 years

from the end of the relevant AY if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped

assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs.50,00,000/- or more. In the

present case, the notice u/s 148 was beyond 3 years from the end of the relevant

AY 2019-20 on 11.04.2023, though the amount was Rs.2,00,000/-, which was less

than threshold limit of Rs.50,00,000/-. Hence, the notice u/s 148 could not have

ITA No.2515/MUM/2026 Mukesh Jhunhunwala

been issued on 11.04.2023. Hence, the notice u/s 148 dated 11.04.2023 is liable to

be set aside and quashed on this angel as well.

Order is pronounced on 08.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 08.06.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI