2026 (5) TMI 1779

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"] dated 29.05.2023, passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department [in short, "the Ld.AO"]. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as under: "1. Ground 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that reassessment proceeding initiated under section 148 which is bad in law and required to be quashed 2. Ground 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that reassessment proceeding initiated under section 148 in violation section 149 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as no income represented in form of asset exceed Rs. 50 lakhs get escaped assessment. Hence, time barred. 3. Ground 3 On t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant craves leave to add further grounds OR to amend OR alter the existing grounds of appeal on OR before the date of hearing" 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of income u/s 139 on 28.09.2017, declaring total income at Rs. 6,28,770/-. Subsequently, the case of assessee was re-opened on the issue of cash loan given by the assessee for Rs. 5,00,000/-. The issue was discussed at length by the Ld. AO in the assessment order, who considered the submissions of the assessee, however was not convinced, therefore, an addition u/s 69 treating the cash loan to Shri Nilesh Bharani for Rs. 5,00,000/- as unexplained investment was made to the income of assessee. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctional Tribunal of Mumbai in various cases. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: 1. Alag Property Construction (P.) Ltd. V/s ACIT [2025] 179 taxmann.com 578 (Bombay) 2.Ramlal G Suthar V/s ITO ITA No. 3224/Mum/2024 3. ACIT V/s Nilkamal Crates & Containers ITA No. 3763/Mum/2025 4. Manojbhai Parsottambhai Poriya V/s ITO ITA No. 1731/Mum/2025 5. Manish Jagdish Joshi V/s CIT [2024] 165 taxmann.com 836 (Mumbai - Trib.) 6. Sudhir Motiram Patil V/s ITO ITA No.6190/MUM/2025 7. Bhavik Prafulchandra Vora V/s DCIT CO. 20/Mum/2026 8. Senthilkumar Thangaraj V/s ITO 8221/Mum/2025 9. Narendra Khimji Savla V/s ITO ITA No. 8720/Mum/2025 4. Based on aforesaid submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s per reasons of the re-opening was only 5,00,000/- Rs. and the assessment year re-opened after 3 years, the issue is covered by the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act, according to which the income escaped assessment should have amounted to or likely to amount to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more. However, such fact has not emanated from the order of Ld. AO as well as other documents or provision brought on record by the Revenue. Therefore, the approval u/s 151 granted in violation of section 149(1)(b) is found to be invalid and unsustainable. Consequently, the assessment u/s 147 would also be liable to be quashed. In the case of ACIT, Circle-24(1) vs. Nilkamal Crates & Containers in ITA No.3763/Mum/2025 vide order dated 03.02.2026, wherein ....