IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4972/MUM/2025 (AY : 2017-18)

(Physical hearing)

Bharti Mukesh Chandarana, Income Tax Officer Ward No.

64, Balasinor Society, S.V. Road, Vs 2(1)(1) Mumbai, Kandivali (West), Room No. 618, 6^th Floor, Kautilya Mumbai-400067, Maharashtra Bhawan, C-41 to C-43, G Block, [PAN No. AACPC 4520F] Int Tax Ward, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai.

Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri K. Gopal & Neha Paranjpe Advocates Revenue by Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR Date of institution of appeal 08.08.2025 Date of hearing 15.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 13.11.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1. This second appeal under section 253 of Income Tax Act (Act) is filed by assessee against the final assessment order passed by assessing officer under section 143(3)/147 read with section 144C(13), passed in pursuance of direction of Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) Mumbai-1, dated 24^th June 2025, for assessment year (AY)2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal;

A. Reopening is bad in law:

(1) The notice dated 31 March 2024 issued by Income Tax Officer, International tax word-2(1)(2) Mumbai, hereinafter “referred as to AO” is without jurisdiction and bad in law as the same has been issued without seeking valid approval under section 151 of the Act, hence, the notice under section 148 and the subsequent draft assessment order dated 31 March 2025 passed under section 144C(1) of the Act is without jurisdiction and the same may quashed.

(2) The notice under section 148 has been issued beyond the period of three years from the end of relevant assessment year. Thus, the AO was required to seek approval of the specified authority under section 151(ii) of the Act. The so-called approval of CCIT, Mumbai-(6) under section 151 of the Act issued by the AO was prepared on 31 March 2024 only, which has not been signed by the specified authority. Thus, there was no application of mind by the specified authority and based on the satisfaction note attached to the draft approval. Hence, notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the draft assessment order passed under section 144C(1) of the Act is bad in law and without jurisdiction. The same may be quashed and set aside.

B. The assessment order dated 24 July 2025 passed under section 147 read with section 144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation.

(3) The assessment order dated 24 July 2025 passed under section 147 read with section 144C(13) of the Act is barred by limitation in the light of the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 153 of the Act. As per the said proviso, no order of the assessment or reassessment shall be made under section 147 after expiry of 12 months from the end of financial year in which notice under section 148 was served.

(4) Notice under section 148 of the Act is served on the appellant on 31 March

2024. Thus, the time limit for passing the assessment order as per section 153(2) of the act was available till 31 March 2025. However, the assessment order under section 147 read with section 144C(13) is passed on 31 July

2025 which is barred by limitation and same may be quashed and set aside.

On merit C. Addition of ₹ 2.50 crore made under section 69A of the Act is unjustified and bad in law (5) The DRP and the AO erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2.50 crore under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained money merely relying on some seized material (promissory note) found during the course of search action in case of Jesus Lal and Universal Education group and the statement of Chaitale Patel, employee, recorded under section 132(4) of the Act without having any corroborative and conclusive evidence for the same. Thus, the addition of Rs. 2.50 crore made under section 69A of the Act is illegal and arbitrary and same may be deleted.

(6) The DRP and the