IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2015-16 Assessment year : 2015-16 Assessment year : 2015-16 Assessment year : 2015-16 Assessment year : 2015-16 Assessment year : 2015-16 Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 09-01-2026

O R D E R

PER R.K. PANDA, V.P:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

21.08.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16.

2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in upholding the validity of re-assessment proceedings.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of real estate. The assessee had not filed its return of income as per provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Information was available with the Assessing Officer that the assessee has purchased the immovable property for a consideration of Rs.7,50,00,000/- which remains unexplained. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 23.07.2022 in response to which the assessee did not file any return of income. Subsequent notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and the show cause notice issued u/s 144 of the Act also remained un-complied with. The Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.7,50,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.

4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it was argued that there are two firms / LLPs viz. Kumar Matunga Projects LLP having PAN : AAOFK9363N and Kumar Matunga Project having PAN: AAOFK4611R. It was argued that the transaction on which the reopening was made does not pertain to Kumar Matunga Project i.e. the assessee in the instant case. It was also submitted that the assessee is not having any knowledge about the completed proceedings of the assessment till the date of physical service of the order.

5. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law. He, however, did not adjudicate the ground challenging the validity of reopening of the assessment.

6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to page 1 of the paper book drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for assessment year 2015-16 which is dated 16.04.2021. Referring to pages 2 to 4 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act for assessment year 2015-16 which is dated 24.05.2022. Referring to page 5 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for assessment year 2015-16 which is dated 23.07.2022. Similarly, the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act, copy of which is placed at pages 7 to 10 of the paper book is also dated 23.07.2022.

8. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Motiwala Auto Private Limited vs. ITO vide ITA No.486/PUN/2025 order dated 09.12.2025 for assessment year 2015-16, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that under identical circumstances the Tribunal has quashed the re- assessment proceedings on the ground that the Revenue has conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that no notice for assessment year 2015-16 can be issued after 31.03.2022. He accordingly submitted that since the Assessing Officer in the instant case