TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re reproduced below: "1. THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION 1.1 In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the final reassessment order framed and passed by the Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward - 4(2)(1), Mumbai ['A.O.'] u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act dated 03.01.2023, pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel ['Ld. DRP'], is bad in law, illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and the scheme and as otherwise also is not in accordance with the law. 1.2 Without prejudice to the generality of the above, the final assessment order so passed is bad in law, illegal and void as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order/directions. 3.3 Without further prejudice to the above, the A.O. erred in not considering the responses filed by the Appellant on 25.08.2021, 14.10.2021, 03.01.2022, 17.02.2022, and 16.03.2022, much less dealing with them judicially and judiciously. 3.4 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such actions were called for. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: 4. CHALLENGE TO REASSESSMENT 4.1 The A.O. erred in initiating the reassessment proceeding and framing the assessment of the Appellant by invoking the provisions of section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. 4.2 While doing so, the A.O. failed to appreciate that: (i) The case of the Appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l and considerations as submitted by the Appellant; (iv) failing to appreciate that the PAN of the Appellant was misused by another "Mr. Mitesh Shah' residing at Nagpur, and (v) failing to appreciate that the Appellant had never traded in shares and securities during the previous year and, therefore. 5.3 Without prejudice to the above, in any case, the A.O. has deleted the addition, made by him on identical facts, in the immediately preceding year (A.Y. 2015-2016) based on the enquiry report received from the police. 5.4 It is submitted that in the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, no such addition was called for. 6. ADDITION OF Rs. 98,500/- u/s. 69 OF THE ACT AS ALLEGED ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring." 2. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act. 3. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed before us, the judgments cited before us, and the orders passed by the Revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that initially the impugned assessment order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act was passed pursuant to the direction issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) of the Act was challenged before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 4. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court, vide its order dated 18.08.2025, passed the following directions, and the same are repro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, the assessee had preferred the present appeal and reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before the Revenue Authorities and also before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 8. We also noticed that the assessee had placed on record the assessment order for AY 2015-16, the operative portion of which is contained in para no. 4 and the same is reproduced here below: 4. It is pertinent to mention here that similar transactions were reported in the case of the assessee for AY 2016-17 also. Accordingly, the case of the assessee for AY 2016-17 was reopened u/s. 147 of the IT Act. During the assessment proceedings of AY 2016-17 the assessee was reiterating that his PAN has bee....