MAHESH K SALOT (HUF) vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRRE

PDF · subscribers
WP/6529/2024HC BombayHCBM01022340202422 September 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B.P. COLABAWALLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SATYAVAN JAMSANDEKAR6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found considerable force in the petitioner's arguments. It noted that the show cause notice dated February 14, 2024, clearly indicated a proposal to treat bank credits of Rs. 5,43,39,761/- as unexplained money under Section 69A. However, the impugned Assessment Order made an addition of Rs. 1,17,00,000/- concerning the purchase of two immovable properties and an addition of Rs. 24,39,420/- under Section 56(2)(x). The Court observed that the petitioner was never called upon to show cause with reference to these specific additions. Consequently, the Court held that the Assessment Order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court set aside the Assessment Order, Demand Notice, and Penalty Notices. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh show cause notice, grant a personal hearing, and pass a speaking order by December 31, 2025. The Court did not decide the applicability of Section 69A to property purchase expenses as the matter was remanded on procedural grounds.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahesh K Salot (HUF), filed a writ petition challenging an Assessment Order dated March 4, 2024, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also challenged were the consequential Demand Notice under Section 156 and Penalty Show Cause Notices under Section 274 read with Sections 270A and 271AAC(1). The primary contention was that the show cause notice proposed an addition of Rs. 5,43,49,761/- as unexplained bank credits under Section 69A, whereas the Assessment Order made an addition of Rs. 1,17,00,000/- for purchases of immovable properties, and an additional Rs. 24,39,420/- under Section 56(2)(x), without issuing a specific show cause notice for these amounts. The petitioner also argued that a personal hearing was not granted for these additions, violating principles of natural justice, and that Section 69A was wrongly applied to property purchase expenses.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessment Order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B is vitiated by a breach of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the discrepancy between the show cause notice and the additions made in the final assessment order, and the denial of a personal hearing for the additions made. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,17,00,000/- representing monies expended for the purchase of immovable properties can be made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the Assessment Order was unsustainable because the show cause notice proposed an addition of Rs. 5,43,49,761/- related to bank credits, but the Assessment Order added Rs. 1,17,00,000/- for immovable property purchases and Rs. 24,39,420/- under Section 56(2)(x) without issuing a proper show cause notice for these specific amounts. The assessee further contended that no personal hearing was granted for these additions, violating natural justice. Additionally, the assessee argued that Section 69A is inapplicable to expenses for immovable property purchases, which should fall under Section 69 if at all. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the merits of the Assessment Order should be agitated before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), as a separate forum exists for such appeals. The revenue argued that the High Court's discretionary writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when the assessment order is finalized and the petitioner has participated in the proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 156,Section 274,Section 270A,Section 271AAC(1),Section 69A,Section 69,Section 56(2)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

129.wp.6529.2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6529 OF 2024 Mahesh K Salot (HUF) .. Petitioner Versus National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Devendra Jain a/w Shashank Mehta, Saukhya Lakade i/b Radha Halbe, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr.Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 P. C. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The above Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned Assessement Order dated 4th March 2024 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B. Consequently, the Demand Notice issued under Section 156 as well as the Penalty Show Causes Notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A and 271AAC(1) are also impugned. Page 1 of 6 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 Utkarsh UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO Digitally signed by UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO Date: 2025.09.24 11:24:51 +0530

129.wp.6529.2024.doc

3.

The short ground on which the above Assessment Order is challenged is that the show cause notice issued before passing the Assessment Order was for making an addition of bank credits of Rs.5,43,49,761/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas the Assessment Order makes an addition with reference to something that is entirely different. The Assessment Order states that an amount of Rs.1,17,00,000/- remains unexplained in view of the provisions of Section 69A of the Act and accordingly are added back to the income of the Assessee. The amount of Rs.1,17,00,000/- was on account of certain purchases made by the Petitioner of two immovable properties. On the other hand, the amount of Rs.5,43,49,761/- is with reference to the bank credits of Kotak Mahindra Bank for Account No.1212122153. On this ground alone, the Assessment Order has to go, is the submission of the Petitioner. 4. In addition to the aforesaid argument, it is the case of the Petitioner that even otherwise no personal hearing was given to the Petitioner for the addition made [for A.Y.2022-23] of Rs.1,17,00,000/-. In other words, it is the contention of the Petitioner that the Assessment Order has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice, and Page 2 of 6 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 Utkarsh

129.wp.6529.2024.doc

therefore, this is yet another ground why the impugned Assessment Order is unsustainable. Lastly, it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that in any event the amount of Rs.1,17,00,000/- added to the income of the Petitioner, and which was for purchase of immovable property, cannot be added under Section 69A of the IT Act. According to the Petitioner, Section 69A applies only where in any financial year the Assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by the Assessee. According to the Petitioner, monies expended for the purchase of immovable properties can never fall under Section 69A, but if at all, would fall under Section 69, which is a section regarding unexplained investments. For all these reasons, the Petitioner contends that the above Petition be allowed. 5. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue, submitted that the merits of the Assessment Order can be agitated only in an Appeal for which there is a separate forum. The discretionary jurisdiction of this Court ought not to be invoked when the Assessment Order is finalized, and in which the Petitioner has participated. If the Petitioner is not satisfied with the Page 3 of 6 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 Utkarsh

129.wp.6529.2024.doc

Assessment Order, then, he can certainly agitate his grievances before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Once the Assessment Order is passed by the Assessing Officer, it is for the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to adjudicate on the merits of the case or the validity of any Notice. On this basis, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the Petition has no merit and the same ought to be dismissed. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in the Writ Petition. We find considerable force in the arguments canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner. The Show Cause Notice dated 14th February 2024 issued to the Petitioner can be found at page 151 of the Paper Book. After setting out some facts, the Show Cause Notice, in paragraph 2.5, clearly states that the Petitioner is required to show cause as to why the bank credits of Rs.5,43,39,761/- cannot be treated as unexplained money in view of Section 69A of the IT Act and accordingly be added to the income of the Petitioner. In paragraph 2.3 of the Show Cause Notice it is clear that this amount of Rs.5,43,39,761/- is regarding bank credits in Account No.1212122153 with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. In other words, the Petitioner was asked to show cause with reference to the entries in the Page 4 of 6 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 Utkarsh

129.wp.6529.2024.doc

aforesaid bank account. This addition was not made by the Assessing Officer in the impugned Assessment Order. In fact, in the impugned Assessment Order, the addition made is in relation to the monies paid for purchase of two immovable properties, and which according to the Assessing Officer, was not properly explained. This addition was for the sum of Rs.1,17,00,000/-. The Petitioner was never called upon to show cause with reference to this addition. Over and above this, there is also an addition of Rs.24,39,420/- being income earned under Section 56(2)X of the IT Act. As far as this amount is also concerned, the Petitioner was never called upon to show cause regarding this addition in the Show Cause Notice dated 14th February 2024. 7. Once these are the facts before us, we are clearly of the view that the Assessment Order cannot be allowed to stand as the same has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned Assessment Order as well as the Demand Notice and the Penalty Notices issued to the Petitioner. We remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner, and thereafter take the proceedings to their logical conclusion. This entire exercise shall be completed by the Assessing Page 5 of 6 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 Utkarsh

129.wp.6529.2024.doc

Officer by 31st December 2025 and the Petitioner shall fully co-operate with the Assessing Officer in that regard. 8. It is needless to clarify that before passing any fresh Assessment Order the Petitioner shall be given a personal hearing and only thereafter a speaking order shall be passed. 9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 10. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 6 of 6 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 Utkarsh

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →