IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA Nos. 4595 to 4597/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Kalpana Ramesh Jain, Deputy Commissioner of Income

2nd assembly road, kalbadevi, Tax – Central Circle -4(3)(1), Kalbadevi H.O, Mumbai, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai Mumbai-400002, Mumbai—400020.

Maharashtra, INDIA, MUMBAI.

PAN NO. AFIPJ 4270 N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Mani Jain a/w Shri Prateek Jain Department by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 04/02/2026

ORDER

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These three appeals by the assessee are directed against three separate orders, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for Assessment Year (in short A.Y) 2015-16 to Assessment Year 2017-18 respectively. On merit common dispute is involved in these appeals and therefore same were heard together and disposed of by way of its consolidated order for sake of convenience.

2. Firstly, we take up the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015-16.

2.1 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed her return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of ₹24,72,640/-. The returned income included a sum of ₹63,24,872/- claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.2 Subsequently, based on information available on the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) Portal alleging that the assessee had traded in the shares of Toyam Industries Ltd., a company purportedly managed by accommodation entry providers, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021

2.3 In response thereto, the assessee filed a return of income on 22.04.2021 reiterating the income originally declared. Statutory notices were thereafter issued and objections raised by the assessee against the reopening were disposed of. Upon completion of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on 31.03.2022, the Assessing Officer treated the sale consideration received on sale of shares of Toyam Industries Ltd. amounting to ₹63,77,600/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act.

2.4 On appeal, the assessee assailed both the validity of the reassessment proceedings as well as the addition on merits. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, rejected the objections of the assessee on both counts. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds reproduced hereinabove.

3. Before us, the Learned Counsel of the assessee filed a paper book containing pages 1-73.

4. Addressing ground nos. 1 and 2, which challenge the validity of the reassessment proceedings, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the reopening is founded on reasons which are factually incorrect, vague, and mechanically recorded, and therefore fail to satisfy the statutory requirement of “reason to believe” as contemplated under section 147 of the Act. It was contended that the entire reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

4.1 It was further submitted that the recorded reasons erroneously describe the assessee as a “company”, whereas the assessee is admittedly an individual. This fundamental factual error, according to the learned counsel, goes to the root of the matter and clearly demonstrates that the reasons were recorded without verification of basic facts. Such casual and incorrect recording of reasons evidences complete non-application of mind, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 unsustainable in law.

4.2 The learned counsel further pointed out that while the reasons recorded a