Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Jindath Babulal Jain,Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer, Mumbai on 9 April, 2026
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI 'F' BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 8242/MUM/2025(AY: 2016-17)
Income Tax Officer, vs. Jindath Babulal Jain,
Room No. 502, 5th Floor, 31, 2nd Floor, Gulalwadi, Opp. Nanu
Piramal Chambers, Lalbaugh, Bhawan, Mumbai, Girgaon S.O,
Parel, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004.
PAN/GIR No: ALEPJ6210C
(Appellant) (Respondent)
CO No.136/Mum/2026
Arising out of
ITA No. 8242/MUM/2025 (AY: 2016-17)
Jindath Babulal Jain, vs. Income Tax Officer,
31, 2nd Floor, Gulalwadi, Opp. Nanu Room No. 502, 5th Floor,
Bhawan, Mumbai, Girgaon S.O, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaugh,
Mumbai-400004. Parel, Mumbai-400012.
PAN/GIR No: ALEPJ6210C
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Shri Dhaval Shah
Revenue by Shri Anurag Tripathi (SR AR)
Date of Hearing 09.04.2026
Date of Pronouncement 16.04.2026
ORDER
PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:
The appeal filed by revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee emanate from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'Act') by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, 'CIT(A)'], Delhi, dated 16.09.2025 for the assessment year (AY) 2016-17.
1 ITA No. 8242/MUM/2025 & CO No. 136/MUM/2025
Jindath Babulal Jain
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in ITA No.8242/Mum/2025 are as under:
"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the reassessment notice issued under section 148 dated 30.07.2022 was invalid, without appreciating that the said notice was duly issued through the faceless system in accordance with section 151A read with CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022, and bearing a valid DIN No. ITBA/AST/M/1481/2022-23/1044365571(1)?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the ITBA/NPAC records, which conclusively establish that the statutory notice under section 148 was generated and issued electronically, accompanied by an intimation letter bearing DINNO. ITBA/AST/S/91/2022-23/1044365601(1) dated 31.07.2022, and therefore, the finding that the notice was 'manually issued is factually incorrect?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 33,36,68,315/ made under section 69A, by accepting the assessee's claim that the impugned bank credits represented genuine sales, solely based on self-generated documents without any independent, third-party corroboration?
4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee did not discharge the onus cast under sections 68 and 69A to establish the identity of buyers, genuineness of transactions, movement of goods, transport or delivery evidence, and commercial infrastructure, and that the Assessing Officer rightly invoked the test of human probabilities as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT. P. Mohanakala (291 ITR 278), Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801) and CIT u. Durga Prasad More (82) ITR 540)?
5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the evidence on record and to well-settled judicial principles, and the assessment order passed under section 143(3)/147 deserves to be restored. 2 ITA No. 8242/MUM/2025 & CO No. 136/MUM/2025
Jindath Babulal Jain
6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing."
3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in CO No.136/Mum/2026 arising out of ITA No.8242/Mum/2025 are as under:
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act and passing the reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act is invalid and bad in the eyes of law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the approval taken u/s. 151 of the Act for the purpose of passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act is invalid and bad in the eyes of law.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 is issued without quoting mandatory Document Identification Number and hence the said notice is invalid and bad in the eyes of law.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the assessment order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice and hence the same is invalid and bad in the eyes of law."
4. Fact of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed the return of income for AY 2016-17 on 30.07.2016 declaring total income at Rs.2,50,440/-. The case was reopened u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022. The order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 30.07.2022. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return declaring the same income of Rs.2,50,440/-. The AO added the total credit transactions amounting to Rs.33,36,68,315/- in the bank accounts of the assessee u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 25.05.2023. 3 ITA No. 8242/MUM/2025 & CO No. 136/MUM/2025
Jindath Babulal Jain
5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee had raised grounds on the validity of reopening u/s 147 and issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act as well as merits of the addition. In the additional grounds, the appellant raised jurisdictional issue that the AO failed to obtain approval u/s 151(ii) of the Act before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. After detailed discussion on the facts of the case and relevant precedents on the subject issue, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee both on merit as well as on jurisdictional ground relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022.
6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue has filed the appeal and the appellant has filed cross objection. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act (new regime) was passed on 30.07.2022 after obtaining approval of the Pr. CIT-19 Mumbai on 29.07.2022. The notice u/s 148 of the Act (new regime) was also issued on the same date i.e. 30.07.2022. He submitted that when this order and the notice were issued, the period of 3 years had already expired on 31.03.2020. Even the extended period granted by Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) till 30.06.2021 had also expired. Therefore, the AO was required to obtain approval of the higher authority i.e., the Pr. CCIT u/s 151(ii) of the Act before passing order u/s 148A(d) and issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Hence, the notice 4 ITA No. 8242/MUM/2025 & CO No. 136/MUM/2025 Jindath Babulal Jain issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid and as a result, the order passed u/s 147 of the Act is also not valid and is liable to be set aside. The Ld. AR has replied on the following decisions: (i) UOI v. Rajeev Bansal [167 taxmann.com 70] dated 03.10.2024; (ii) Ramesh Bachulal Mehta v. ITO [177 taxmann.com 606] dated 11.08.2025; (iii) Alag Property Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [WP No. 3938 of 2022] dated 08.09.2025 and (iv) ITO v. Soni Ajay Jain [ITA No. 3841/Mum/2025] dated 08.10.2025.
7. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR of the revenue submitted that the CO was filed late and should not be admitted. On merit, she supported the order of the AO.
8. We have both parties and perused the materials on record. We shall first decide the jurisdictional grounds raised by both sides. The Ld. CIT DR has objected to the late filing of the cross objection by the appellant. The objection has two aspects, i.e. (i) whether grounds in the cross objection are liable to be entertained and (ii) whether the delay could be condoned. The cross objection was filed on 07.04.2026 in response to the appeal No. ITA No.8242/Mum/ 2025 dated 29.11.2025. As per the sub-section (4) of section 253 of the Act, the cross objection may be filed within 30 days of the receipt of the notice of the appeal. Thus, the CO was admittedly filed late by 95 days. Sub-section (5) of section 253 of the Act permits the ITAT to admit an appeal or permit filing of cross objection after 5 ITA No. 8242/MUM/2025 & CO No. 136/MUM/2025 Jindath Babulal Jain relevant period if it is satisfied that there was "sufficient cause" for presenting the appeal. We find that the appellant himself had raised an additional ground before CIT(A) regarding validity of the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022. Though the CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of the appellant, he has not specifically dealt with the ground raised in the cross objection. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the delay was not intentional. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. Hence, the delay in filing cross objection is condoned. 8.1 The other aspect is as to whether the cross objection raised for the first time could be admitted. The scope of powers of ITAT in dealing with appeals is stated in section 254 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) has held that the power of the Appellate Tribunal under s. 254 in dealing with appeals is expressed in the widest possible terms. The purpose of the assessment proceedings before the taxing authorities is to assess correctly the liability of the assessee in accordance with law. If, for example, as a result of a judicial proceeding given while the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible 6 ITA No. 8242/MUM/2025 & CO No. 136/MUM/2025 Jindath Babulal Jain deduction is denied, there is no reason why the assessee should be prevented from raising that question before the Tribunal for the first time, so long as the relevant facts are on record in respect of that item. There is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal under s. 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the CIT (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross objection before the Tribunal. There is no reason why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering a question of law arising in the assessment proceedings although not raised earlier. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not to allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider the question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings, there is no reason why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of the assessee. 8.2 There is no reason as to why the ratio of the above decision would not be applicable to the instant appeal. The ground raised by the appellant is purely legal in nature and is based on the facts available on record. Therefore, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, the cross objection is admitted.
9. Having admitted the cross objection of the assessee, let us discuss the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellant in the cross objection. The issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is that in case where order u/s 7 ITA No. 8242/MUM/2025 & CO No. 136/MUM/2025 Jindath Babulal Jain 148A(d) of the Act (new regime) has been passed and/or notice u/s 148 of the Act (new regime) has been issued for the AY 2016-2017 after 30.06.2021, whether the Pr. CIT u/s 151(i) of the Act or the Pr. CCIT u/s 151(ii) of the Act is the "specified authority" for granting necessary approval. In our view, the above issue is no longer res integra and stands settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra). In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, while dealing with the issue of approval from specified authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act, made it clear that the specified authority u/s 151(i) of the Act (new regime) could grant sanction till 30.06.2021 and not thereafter. In the present case, order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act (new regime) were issued on 30.07.2022 i.e. after 30.06.2021 with approval/sanction of the PCIT-19 Mumbai. As per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the authority specified u/s 151(ii) was the Pr. CCIT and not Pr. CIT. Therefore, we hold that in absence of the approval from the specified authority u/s 151(ii) of the Act, the AO lacked jurisdiction to pass order u/s 148A(d) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act (new regime) for AY 2017-
18. Therefore, the impugned order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act, both dated 30.07.2022 are quashed and set aside as being bad in law. Resultantly, the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 25.05.2023 is also quashed. The cross objection of the assessee is, accordingly, allowed.
8 ITA No. 8242/MUM/2025 & CO No. 136/MUM/2025
Jindath Babulal Jain ITA No.8242/Mum/2025 (AY: 2016-17)
10. Since we have quashed and set aside the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 25.05.2023, the grounds raised by the revenue have become infructuous and accordingly dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order is pronounced on 16.04.2025
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
*Aniket Chand; Sr. PS
MUMBAI
Date: 16.04.2026
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. The Assessee
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI
6. Guard File
By Order
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, MUMBAI
9