TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-48, Mumbai has erred in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of alleged information from the Investigation Wing without providing the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements or reports were relied upon. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-48, Mumbai has failed to appreciate that the assessment for the relevant year had already been completed under section 143(3) and the reopening is merely on a change of opinion, which is impermissible in law. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-48, Mumbai has erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- by treating sale consideration received from Decent Vincom Pvt. Ltd as unexplained cash receipts under section 68 of Income Tax Act, without properly appreciating the facts and explanations placed on record. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax (A)-48, Mumbai has erred in upholding the action of Ld. Assessing Officer in issuing of notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2021 in violation of provisions contained in section 151A as held by Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Limited vs. ACIT [WP 1778/2023; order dated 03.05.2024]. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other." 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application dated 21/03/2026 seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit of Shri Priyank Shah, Managing Director of the assessee-company. It has been submitted that the order u/s.250 of the Act dated 31/12/2025 was uploaded on the e-filing portal and no physical copy thereof was served upon the assessee. Though the order was communicated through email, the same remained unnoticed and, subsequently, when the status of the appellate proceedings was checked on the e-filing portal in March 2026, the assessee came to know of the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in (1998) 229 ITR 383 has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law arising from the facts which are already on record, even if such question was not raised before the lower authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there is no reason why a question of law arising from the facts which are on record should not be allowed to be raised before the Tribunal for the first time. Further, in Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT reported in (1991) 187 ITR 688, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appellate authority has jurisdiction to permit an additional ground to be raised before it, provided the ground is bona fide and its consideration is necessary for determining the correct tax liability. 3.3. In the present case, the additional ground goes to the very assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld.AO to reopen the assessment and, therefore, goes to the root of the matter. The issue raised is a pure question of law and its adjudication can be undertaken on the basis of the facts already available on record. No fresh investigation of facts is required for the purpose of admitting the ground. 3.4. In view of the above, respectfully follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocuments, and that the subsequent reopening was based upon information from the Investigation Wing without establishing any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The assessee also contended that the transactions had been duly disclosed and supported by relevant documents during the original assessment proceedings. 5.1. The Ld.CIT(A), however, rejected the challenge to the reopening. The Ld.CIT(A) held that, the information received from the Investigation Wing/Insight Portal constituted tangible material giving the Ld.AO "reason to believe" regarding escapement of income. The Ld.CIT(A) further held that the sufficiency of the reasons could not be challenged so long as there was a live link between the material and the formation of belief, and concluded that the Ld.AO had followed the requisite procedure. Accordingly, the reopening u/s 147 was held to be valid. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. In addition to the original grounds, the assessee has raised additional ground vide application dated 30/07/2026, challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld.AO in initiatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....self, establish failure of disclosure on the part of the assessee. Reliance was placed, on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ganga Saran & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. ITO reported in 131 ITR 1, and CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 320 ITR 561, and the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar reported in 268 ITR 332. 6.5. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the reopening was based upon specific information received through the Investigation Wing/Insight Portal concerning suspicious transactions undertaken by the assessee. It was submitted that such information constituted tangible material giving the Ld.AO reason to believe that income escaped assessment. The Ld.DR relied on the reasons recorded and submitted that the Ld.AO recorded his satisfaction that the escapement of income was attributable to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The Ld.DR, therefore, submitted that the reopening was valid and that the additional ground raised by the assessee deserved to be rejected. We have perused the submissions a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct resulted in escapement of income. 8.1. In this regard, the fact that the Ld.AO has used the statutory expression regarding failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts cannot, by itself, satisfy the requirement of the first proviso. The jurisdictional condition requires a factual nexus between the alleged failure of disclosure and the escapement of income. A mere recital of the statutory language, without identification of the material fact allegedly not disclosed, would not suffice. 8.2. This position is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar, (supra), wherein it was held that the reasons recorded must disclose the particular fact or material which was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly and that the reasons must establish the requisite nexus between such failure and the escapement of income. The Hon'ble Court has also held that the reasons recorded cannot subsequently be supplemented by extraneous material. 8.3. In case of Ananta Landmark Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 439 ITR 168, Hon'ble Bombay High Court dealt with the requirement of the first proviso to Section 147 held, that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... those transactions which was not disclosed by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings. More importantly, there is no factual narration in the recorded reasons explaining what material fact was withheld, how the assessee failed to disclose such fact fully and truly, and how such failure was the proximate cause of the alleged escapement of income. The mere reproduction of the statutory expression that the escapement was "on account of failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts" cannot substitute for recording the factual basis on which that jurisdictional condition is said to be satisfied. 8.7. This assumes significance in the peculiar facts of the present case. The original assessment was not an assessment which had remained unattended or was completed merely on the basis of the return of income. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 23/12/2016 after issuance of notice under section 143(2) and notices under section 142(1), and after the assessee had furnished details from time to time. The material now relied upon for reopening relates to transactions which, as demonstrated from the material placed before us, were supported ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ticularly so because the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction has to be tested with reference to the statutory conditions existing at the time when the notice under section 148 was issued. 8.11. On the facts before us, the reasons do not identify any such withheld primary fact. On the contrary, the material placed on record indicates that the relevant transactions were disclosed and documentary particulars were furnished during the original scrutiny proceedings. Thus, what subsequently emerged was not, on the face of the recorded reasons, a discovery that the assessee had failed to disclose the primary facts, but rather information received by the Revenue concerning the nature or characterisation of transactions which had already been disclosed. A subsequent change in the Revenue's understanding of the disclosed transactions, even if founded upon information subsequently received, cannot by itself be converted into a failure of disclosure by the assessee. 8.12. The principle is not that an assessment completed under section 143(3) becomes immune from reassessment merely because four years have elapsed. The statutory scheme does permit reopening beyond four years, bu....