J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same is reproduced as under: “The alleged sanction obtained under section 151 of the Act does not bear a manual or digital signature. (Page 114 to 131 of Paper Book

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same is reproduced as under: “The alleged sanction obtained under section 151 of the Act does not bear a manual or digital signature. (Page 114 to 131 of Paper Book

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same is reproduced as under: “The alleged sanction obtained under section 151 of the Act does not bear a manual or digital signature. (Page 114 to 131 of Paper Book

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

reassessment proceedings carried out is bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed written submission in respect of this ground of appeal and the same is reproduced as under: “The alleged sanction obtained under section 151 of the Act does not bear a manual or digital signature. (Page 114 to 131 of Paper Book

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1) , MUMBAI

section 282A is that notice or other\ndocument to be issued by any Income-tax Authority\nshall be signed by that authority. The word \"and\"\nhas been used in sub-section (1), in conjunctive\nsense, meaning thereby that such notice or other\ndocument has first to be signed by the authority\nand thereafter it may be issued either in paper

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings carried out is\nbad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed\nwritten submission in respect of this ground of appeal\nand the same is reproduced as under:\n“The alleged sanction obtained under section 151 of\nthe Act does not bear a manual or digital signature.\n(Page 114 to 131 of Paper Book

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings carried out is \nbad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed \nwritten submission in respect of this ground of appeal \nand the same is reproduced as under:\n“The alleged sanction obtained under section 151 of\nthe Act does not bear a manual or digital signature.\n(Page 114 to 131 of Paper Book

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

reassessment is bad in law.”\n22\nJ Kumar Infraprojects Ltd.\n3. New Nobel Education Society v. CCIT 2022 INSC\n1111\nComments: The Department has relied on the above case\nlaws to interpret the statue. It is not doubted that the words\n“and” and “or” have separate significance. The Department’s\ninterpretation of section 282A

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings carried out is\nbad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed\nwritten submission in respect of this ground of appeal\nand the same is reproduced as under:\n“The alleged sanction obtained under section 151 of\nthe Act does not bear a manual or digital signature.\n(Page 114 to 131 of Paper Book

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LTD, MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings carried out is\nbad in law and liable to be quashed. The Assessee filed\nwritten submission in respect of this ground of appeal\nand the same is reproduced as under:\n“The alleged sanction obtained under section 151 of\nthe Act does not bear a manual or digital signature.\n(Page 114 to 131 of Paper Book

DCIT CC-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

282A of the Act. 2. Without prejudice to ground 1 above, if Hon'ble ITAT concludes that the impugned Notices were issued on or after 1st April, 2021, then, the new regime of Section 147, 148, 148A, 149 and 151 of the Act of 1961, shall govern these reassessment

DCIT CC 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

282A of the Act. 2. Without prejudice to ground 1 above, if Hon'ble ITAT concludes that the impugned Notices were issued on or after 1st April, 2021, then, the new regime of Section 147, 148, 148A, 149 and 151 of the Act of 1961, shall govern these reassessment

HAZEL MERCANTILE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

282A of the Act. 2. Without prejudice to ground 1 above, if Hon'ble ITAT concludes that the impugned Notices were issued on or after 1st April, 2021, then, the new regime of Section 147, 148, 148A, 149 and 151 of the Act of 1961, shall govern these reassessment

HASHMAT ISHAQ PARKER,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 282A having not been followed while issuing the notice u/s 148 the same is invalid. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Prakash KrishnaraoBharadwaj (Copy enclosed) where in the High Court, in connection with unsigned notice u/s 148, has held that such unsigned notice, either physically or digitally invalid

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

section 153C of LT. Act, 1961 can be initiated in respect to person other than searched only if incriminating material belonging to such person has been found and seized from the premises of person searched. No incriminating documents found at the person searched being M/s. Artefact Projects Ltd. no valid proceedings under section 153C of IT Act, 1961 could have

HASHMAT ISHAQ PARAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α No.4071/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2015-16 Ι.Τ.Α. No.3973/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2018-19 Hashmat Ishaq Parker Vs Income Tax Officer 1, Furus, Tal-Khed, District- Ratnagiri, Maharashtra- 415710 Pan : Αχορρ1815Η Appellant Income Tax Office, Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai-400051 Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 Order Per Bench: Both The Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee By Challenging The Order Of The Nfac Delhi [For Brevity, ‘Ld.Cit(A)'] Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Brevity, ‘The Act), Date Of Order 20/12/2024 & 06/12/2024 Related To Assessment Year 2015-16 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Impugned Orders Emanated From The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Ratinagiri (For Brevity, ‘The Ld.Ao') Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act, Date Of Orders 20/03/2023 & 21/03/2023 For Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2018-19. 2. Since All The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Involving Similar Issues Arising Out Of A Similar Factual Matrix, These Appeals Were Heard Together As A Matter Of Convenience & Are Being Decided By Way Of This Consolidated Order. With The Consent Of The Parties, The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Treated As A Lead Case & The Decision Rendered Therein Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis To Other Appeal For Ay 2018-19 Before Us.

282A and Rule 127. b. There being no power to the JAO to issue notice u/s 148 in terms of Circular No.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 the notice so issued is invalid." 4. The registry informed that both the appeals have been filed with a delay. The Ld. AR stated that for A.Y. 2015-16 the appeal was filed delay