TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f such approval is void-ab-initio. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) further fell in error of law in upholding the assessment order dated 16/03/2026 passed by Ld. AO under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act without appreciating that the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is in contravention of Circular issued by CBDT. Hence, notice issued under Section 143(2) is void ab initio and therefore, the assessment order dated 16/03/2026 passed in pursuance of above notice is also bad in law, and the same may be quashed. 3. The order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) u/s 250 confirming the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record and is liable to be set aside. 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/-made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 treating the unsecured loan received from M/s Vavya Enterprises as unexplained cash credit, without appreciating the fact that provisions of section 68 is not at all applicable to the facts of present case. Hence, addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted. 5. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is unlawful as the Ld. A.O. lacked the jurisdiction to assess or reassess issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings were initiated. Thus, the said assessment order passed making without making any additions as per the reasons for the initiation of those proceedings is arbitrary, unsustainable and therefore, bad in law. 3. The NFAC failed to appreciate that the assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bombay) and hence, the said assessment order is illegal and is bad in law." 3. We have considered the application seeking admission of the additional grounds. The additional grounds challenge the very assumption of jurisdiction under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961( in short the Act) and raise a pure question of law arising from the facts already available on record. Their adjudication does not require any further investigation into disputed facts. It is now well settled that a pure legal ground, going to the root of the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfidential Information Code Information Description Source Count Amount Description Amount (Rs.) - - - - - - Information - Others Information Code Information Description Source Count Amount Description Amount (Rs.) - - - - - - 5. After considering the reply furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 148A(d), rejecting the explanation and holding that it was a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148. Consequently, notice under Section 148 was issued and reassessment proceedings were undertaken. However, upon completion of reassessment under Section 147 read with Section 144B, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition whatsoever in respect of the issues forming the very basis of the notice issued under Section 148A(b) and the order passed under Section 148A(d). Instead, the Assessing Officer proceeded to examine an altogether different issue relating to an unsecured loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- received by the assessee from M/s Vavya Enterprises and ultimately treated the same as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 5.1 Thus, admittedly, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment framework by introducing Section 148A and substantially amending Sections 147 to 151 of the Act. Under the substituted regime, before issuing a notice under Section 148, the Assessing Officer is statutorily obliged to identify the "information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment", furnish such information to the assessee by issuing a notice under Section 148A(b), consider the reply filed by the assessee, and thereafter pass a reasoned order under Section 148A(d) determining whether it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148. Thus, unlike the erstwhile provisions, the jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is no longer founded merely upon the uncommunicated subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The jurisdictional foundation now rests upon the specific information disclosed to the assessee, who is afforded a statutory opportunity to rebut the same before issuance of notice under Section 148. The legislative scheme, therefore, clearly manifests that the reassessment proceedings originate from and remain anchored to the information communicated under Section 148A(b). Consequently, the validity of the reassessment necessarily....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ways (India) Ltd. (supra) continues to hold the field. In fact, the substituted statutory framework reinforces, rather than dilutes, the principle laid down therein. Section 148A(b) mandates disclosure of the information suggesting escapement of income, while Section 148A(d) requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction with respect to such information before assuming jurisdiction under Section 148. Therefore, the jurisdiction itself is founded upon the specific information disclosed to the assessee. Where, ultimately, no addition is made on the very issue constituting the basis for assumption of jurisdiction, the substratum of the reassessment disappears. In such circumstances, permitting the Assessing Officer to sustain the reassessment solely for making an addition on an altogether unrelated issue would render the statutory safeguards introduced by Parliament under Section 148A wholly nugatory. 6.5 The Finance Act, 2021 has undoubtedly altered the procedural framework governing reassessment. However, the amendments merely strengthen the procedural safeguards available to the assessee by introducing a pre-notice enquiry under Section 148A. They do not enlarge the subst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... illusory. Such an interpretation would not only frustrate the legislative intent underlying the Finance Act, 2021 but would also permit reassessment proceedings to travel beyond the jurisdictional foundation on which they were initiated. 6.8 We also find that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Milan Agency v. ITO, ITA No. 5414/Mum/2024, after considering the substituted reassessment provisions and following the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (supra), held that where no addition is made on the issue for which the reassessment proceedings were initiated, the Assessing Officer lacks jurisdiction to make additions on any other issue. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under:- "7. Before us, the ld. Counsel in respect of additional ground filed vehemently contended that no addition has been made on the issues raised in the reason provided in the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act. He further made reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 336 (Bombay). The ld. Counsel also filed paper book comprising copies of details and subm....