ASHOK KARUSAO BOKDE,AMBERNATH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), KALYAN, KALYAN

आदेश / ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Present appeal filed by assessee is directed against the order passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 12/06/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19, on the following grounds of appeal:-

ITA 5190/MUM/2025 ASHOK KARUSAO BOKDE

“1) The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in upholding the validity of notice issued u/s. 148 the Act for reopening of the assessment by the Ld.AO. 2) The assessment order u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 29.03.2023 is bad in law. 3) The notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2022 is bad in law. The Ld. AO has not fulfilled the jurisdictional requirements of section 147 to 151A of the Act. The procedures prescribed under the law have not been followed. 4) The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 22,76,000/- made by the Ld. AO as unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 5) The addition made is in gross violation of principles of natural justice as no material has been provided, neither cross examination opportunity was provided. 6) The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 23,450/- made by the Ld. AO as interest received from the Banks. 7) The Ld. AO has erred in the levying interest under section 234B, 234C of the Act. 8) The Ld. AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceeding u/s u/s 274 read with section 271AAC of the Act. 9) The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter/delete and/OR modify the above grounds of appeal on OR before the final hearing.”

ITA 5190/MUM/2025 ASHOK KARUSAO BOKDE from gross violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no incriminating material was supplied and no effective opportunity was granted to rebut the allegations forming the basis of reopening. Thus, Ground Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, being interconnected, go to the very root of the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld.AO and are taken up for adjudication.

3.1. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The assessee is an individual and salaried employee who had filed return of income for A.Y. 2018-19. Subsequently, information was received by the department from DDIT/ADIT (Inv.), Mumbai alleging that the assessee had allegedly paid on- money in cash amounting to Rs.22,76,000/- to GNP Group in connection with purchase of immovable property. Based on such information, notice u/s 148A(b) dated 15/03/2022 was issued calling upon the assessee to explain as to why proceedings u/s 148 of the Act should not be initiated.

3.2. In response thereto, the assessee filed detailed submissions contending that the assessee had purchased Gala No.30 at GNP Galaxy, Ambernath jointly with his wife for total consideration of Rs.37,00,000/- and the entire consideration was paid through banking channels. The assessee specifically denied having paid any cash/on-money amount to GNP Group. The assessee further requested the Ld.AO to furnish copies of statements of Girish Pawar and other related parties, alleged seized sheets containing coded entries, statement of Kapil Talreja and other materials relied upon in the notice issued u/s 148A(b). The assessee also requested opportunity for cross examination of concerned persons. However, according to the assessee, no such material

ITA 5190/MUM/2025 ASHOK KARUSAO BOKDE was supplied nor any effective opportunity of cross examination was granted. Thereafter, order u/s 148A(d) was passed and notice u/s 148 was issued culminating into assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act making addition of Rs.22,76,000/- u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act along with addition of bank interest of Rs.23,450/-.

Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4.1. The Ld.AR drew our attention to the reply filed before the Ld.AO wherein the assessee had categorically sought copies of statements of Girish Pawar, Kapil Talreja, alleged seized sheets and other incriminating materials forming basis of reopening proceedings. He submitted that without supplying such material, the assessee was deprived of effective opportunity to rebut the allegations. It was submitted that even request for cross examination of concerned persons was ignored.

4.2. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had specifically denied payment of any cash/on-money to GNP Group and had explained that the subject property was purchased through

ITA 5190/MUM/2025 ASHOK KARUSAO BOKDE registered agreement and entire consideration was paid through banking channels. However, the Ld.AO proceeded merely on the basis of third-party information received from Investigation Wing without conducting any independent inquiry or confronting the assessee with the relied upon material.

4.3. The Ld.AR relied upon the following decisions in support of his contentions:

4.5. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the orders of lower authorities and submitted that the reopening proceedings were initiated on the basis of credible information received from Investigation Wing regarding alleged payment of on-money by the assessee in purchase of property from GNP Group. He submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee during proceedings and the assessee had participated by filing replies before the Ld.AO.

4.6. The Ld.DR submitted that the assessee failed to substantiate his claim with cogent evidences so as to dislodge the information received by the department. He further submitted that the Ld.AO had valid reason to form belief that income

ITA 5190/MUM/2025 ASHOK KARUSAO BOKDE chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and therefore reopening proceedings were validly initiated. He accordingly relied upon the orders of the Ld.AO and Ld.CIT(A).

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the records placed before this Tribunal.

5.1. From the records placed before us, we observe that the reopening proceedings were initiated on the basis of information allegedly received from Investigation Wing regarding payment of on-money by the assessee to GNP Group in connection with purchase of immovable property. In response to notice issued u/s 148A(b), the assessee had specifically requested the Ld.AO to furnish copies of statements of concerned persons, alleged seized materials, coded sheets and other incriminating documents relied upon by the department. The assessee had also sought opportunity for cross examination of the persons whose statements were proposed to be relied upon against the assessee.

5.2. However, neither during proceedings u/s 148A nor during reassessment proceedings has the Revenue placed anything on record to establish that such relied upon materials/information were furnished to the assessee. Similarly, no material has been brought before us to demonstrate that opportunity of cross

ITA 5190/MUM/2025 ASHOK KARUSAO BOKDE examination as specifically sought by the assessee was ever granted.

5.3. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dada Akbarbhai Sindkhedawala v. ACIT in Writ Petition (L) No.30778 of 2023 dated 23/01/2024 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that where reassessment proceedings are based upon materials gathered during search/survey/investigation proceedings, copies of such relied upon materials are required to be furnished to the assessee so as to enable effective rebuttal before passing order u/s 148A(d) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court emphasized that failure to furnish the relied upon material would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.

5.4. We further find that coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Gedalia Multitrading Pvt. Ltd. v. NFAC/ITO in ITA No.6056/Mum/2025 order dated 06/02/2026 and in the case of Richa Finance & Investment Private Limited v. ITO in ITA No.4252/Mum/2023 order dated 26/11/2025 has also held that reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained where the assessee was not confronted with the underlying material/information forming basis of reopening proceedings.

5.5. In the present case, except making general reference to information received from Investigation Wing, no incriminating material forming basis of reopening was ever confronted to the assessee. In our considered opinion, non-furnishing of relied upon material strikes at the very root of jurisdiction assumed by the Ld.AO u/s 147/148 of the Act since the assessee was

ITA 5190/MUM/2025 ASHOK KARUSAO BOKDE deprived of effective opportunity contemplated under section 148A(b) of the Act.

5.6. Accordingly, considering the facts of the present case and respectfully following the judicial precedents discussed hereinabove, we hold that the order passed u/s 148A(d), consequential notice issued u/s 148 and assessment framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed.

Since we have quashed the reassessment proceedings on legal grounds, adjudication on merits of additions made by the Ld.AO has become merely academic and therefore the same are left open.

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14th May, 2026. Sd/- Sd/-

ARUN KHODPIA BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 14/05/2026 SC, Sr. P.S.

ITA 5190/MUM/2025 ASHOK KARUSAO BOKDE Copy to:

ASHOK KARUSAO BOKDE, 104 SWAMIPRASAD APARTMENT, JAI BHAWANI CHOWK B CABIN AMBERNATH 1 (EAST), THANE 421501, MAHARASHTRA., KALYAN-421501, MAHARASHTRA INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), KALYAN, MOHAN PLAZA, WAYALE NAGAR, KHADAK 2 PADA, KALYAN (W), KALYAN, MAHARASHTRA, 421301., KALYAN-421301, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE