AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not deliberate and beyond the control of assessee. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that the assessee in fact filed an affidavit deposing that he was out of India during that period and the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and therefore, requested for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. On hearing both the parties and perusing the condonation petition alongwith affidavit furnished by the assessee, we find that there is a reasonable cause in filing the appeal by the assessee with delay of 84 days. Thus, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. Coming to the merits of the appeal the assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal :- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (IT), Delhi-2 (hereinafter referred as the CIT (IT)) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "Act'] is bad, both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the learned CIT (IT) under section 263 of the Act i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made transaction of Rs. 19,40,51,887/- with Synapse Middle East FZE Foreign branch of M/s Punj Lloyd Limited at Oman has carried transactions with various entities for its projects at Oman. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (IT) has erred both on facts and in law in passing order u/s. 263 merely on the basis of un-substantiated WhatsApp chats, soft data retrieved/carved from the mobile phone, laptop etc. impounded during survey by arbitrarily rejecting the explanation along with documentary evidences furnished by the appellant that: Relied upon WhatsApp chats, soft data retrieved/carved from the mobile phone, laptop etc, does not have any evidentiary value without having any corroborative evidence to substantiate the contents of said alleged WhatsApp chats, soft data etc as stated by CBDT in Para 2.8 of Chapter 2 of the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued in 2014. Relied upon WhatsApp chats do not have any evidentiary value as per the Supreme Court Ruling in the case of A2z Infraservices Ltd v Quippo Infrastructure Ltd. (Now Known as Viom Infra Ventures Ltd) SLP (C) No. - 008636/2021 (SC) Alleged WhatsApp chats are 8. Tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....147 of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and accordingly the ld. CIT concluded that the AO failed to conduct proper enquiry or verification which should have been done and therefore, held that the reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act is erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the reassessment completed u/s. 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 15.04.2024 is not erroneous since the AO completed the reassessment making addition of Rs. 3,49,881/- for which reason the assessment was reopened. The Ld. Counsel submitted that since the addition was made in the reassessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act based on the reasons recorded the reassessment order passed by the AO cannot be said to be an erroneous order. 9. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that when the addition was made while completing the reassessment based on the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, such an assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act to make other additions which were not part of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the assessment was originally reopened. Ld. Counsel submitted that Ld.CIT attempted to revise the assessment order by bringing in new issue which were outside the purview of reasons for reassessment. 12. Ld. Counsel submitted that similar view has been taken by the Pune Bench in the case of Gulab Badgujar (HUF) Vs. CIT in ITA No.798 and 799/Pun/2015 dated 03.05.2019. Referring to this decision of the coordinate Bench of Pune the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in para-10 the Tribunal observed that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Ahoska Buildcom Ltd. Vs. ACIT (191 taxmann 29) held that when the reassessment proceedings were in relation of a particular grounds and subsequent there to of passing the reassessment and exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act with reference to the issues which did not form subject of reopening of assessment cannot be exercised. 13. On the other hand the Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Ld. CIT in exercising the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and holding that reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 14. Head rival submissions and p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account balance and doesn't represents any transactions having impact on income of Rs. 3,49,881/-. As assessee failed to submit the details of transactions of Rs. 3,49,881/-despite providing adequate opportunity and copy of information requested, so the sources of Rs. 3,49,881/-remained unexplained. Hence, the above transaction is unexplained. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the assessee's case is a fit case for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act for AY 2019-20 as income amounting to Rs. 3,49,881/- was chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment. 6. Thus, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act is being issued separately in the case of the assessee along with this order u/s. 148A(d) with the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation-2, New Delhi." 15. Accordingly the reassessment was completed on 15.04.2024 determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 4,45,221/- by making addition of Rs. 3,49,881/- being opening balance in the HDFC bank Ltd. Subsequently the Ld.CIT passed order u/s. 263 of the Act on 03.02.2025 holding that the reassessment order passed by the AO u/s. 147 of the Act for the A.Y. 2019....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for reopening the assessment. Moreover, the assessee had provided sufficient explanations and evidence during the reassessment proceedings regarding the unsecured loans received from M/s. Yash EPC Projects Pvt. Ltd., and the AO had duly considered these submissions before making the addition under section 2(22)(e). Thus, the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue merely because the Lal. PCIT holds a different view on unrelated issues. 12. We have noted the judicial precedents relied on by the assessee which primarily deals with the issue of Limited Scrutiny. However, the courts have ruled that invoking Section 263 based on documents that were not part of the original assessment record is legally impermissible. In the case of Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd.(reported in 150 ITR 643), Hon'ble Calcutta High Court clearly stated that revisional powers should be exercised only on the basis of the records that were available during the assessment proceedings. The Co-ordinate Bench in case of M/s. Visu Casement Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 306/Ahd/2020) echoed this view, confirming that extraneous materials cannot justify revision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held as under: "8. Where an assessment has been reopened under Section 147 in relation to a particular ground or in relation to certain specified grounds and, subsequent to the passing of the order of reassessment, the jurisdiction under Section 263 is sought to be exercised with reference to issues which do not form the subject of the reopening of the assessment or the order of reassessment, the period of limitation provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 263 would commence from the date of the order of assessment and not from the date on which the order reopening the reassessment has been passed. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Para 10 further held that 10........... Where a reassessment has been made pursuant to a notice under Section 148, the order of reassessment prevails in respect of those items which form part of reassessment. On items which do not form part of the reassessment, the original assessment continues to hold the field. When the Assessing Officer reopens an assessment on a particular issue, it is open to him to make a reassessment on that issue as well as in respect of other issues which subsequently come to his notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide." 19. Further the coordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT in ITA No.3400/Del/2024 dated 30.06.2025 held as under :- "7. The learned AR before us vehemently submitted that reasons recorded for reopening the assessment was for adding the sum of Rs. 4,46,00,000/- being the amounts received from five companies controlled by Sri Joginder Pal Gupta. The reassessment was completed under section 147 of the Act on 27-03-2022 after duly adding the said sum of Rs. 4,46,00,000/-. Hence, no error could be attributed in the said reassessment order framed by the learned AO. When there is no error, the said order cannot be subjected to revision under section 263 of the Act. The learned AR placed reliance in support of this argument on the decision of coordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of Gulab Badgujar (HUF) vs CIT in ITA Nos. 798 and 799/Pun/ 2015 dated 3-5-2019, wherein it was held as under:- "9. The question which arises is the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income lax under section 263 of the Act against the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, wherein the assessment....