SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 7391

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member
Kashyap Kanaiyalal Mehta – Appellant
Versus
DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai – Respondent
ITA No.6197/Mum/2024 to 6203/Mum/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinod Kumar Bindal CA a/w. Satish Kumar
For the Respondents: Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Reassessments under s.147 void ab initio post-search if proceedings pending and escapement >Rs.50L in relevant years; s.153A additions invalid absent incriminating material from assessee's premises – requires s.153C for third-party search material.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 147, 148, 153A, 153C, 127, 129, 68, 69, 69C - Search and seizure - Reassessment jurisdiction - Where reassessment proceedings under section 147 were pending on date of search under section 132 and information indicated escaped income exceeding Rs.50 lakhs in relevant assessment years within extended 10-year period post amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2017, such proceedings abate mandatorily under second proviso to section 153A(1); Assessing Officer cannot frame order under section 147 but must proceed under section 153A, rendering reassessment order void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. Special provisions prevail over general under maxim 'generalia specialibus non derogant'. (Paras 19-22)

(B) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 153A, 153C - Additions in search assessments - No addition permissible under section 153A in respect of completed/unabated assessments absent incriminating material found during search in assessee's premises; material from independent third-party searches, even if confronted in statement under section 132(4), requires mandatory section 153C procedure - Statement alone, uncorroborated and retracted, does not constitute incriminating material; additions on alleged bogus capital gains, unexplained loans/interest deleted. (Paras 16-32)

(C) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 127(2), 129 - Jurisdictional transfer - Mandatory written transfer order under section 127(2) and intimation under section 129 for change in incumbent Assessing Officer required; absence renders assessment void ab initio. (Paras 8-9)

Facts of the case:
Bunch of appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2018-19 challenging reassessments under sections 147/153A confirming additions for alleged bogus long-term capital gains (u/s 68), commission (u/s 69C), unexplained loans/interest (u/s 69/56). Reopenings based on investigation info from third-party searches confronted during assessee's search on 06.10.2017; no incriminating material found in assessee's premises; prior reassessment quashed for jurisdiction.

Findings of Court:
Reassessment orders under section 147 quashed as void ab initio post-search; additions under section 153A deleted for lack of incriminating material from assessee's search, requiring section 153C route instead.

Issues: Validity of jurisdiction under sections 147/153A post-search; permissibility of additions absent incriminating material from assessee's premises; procedural compliance under sections 127/129.

Ratio Decidendi: Post-search, pending section 147 proceedings abate under section 153A if escaped income > Rs.50 lakhs in relevant years; section 153A confined to material found in assessee's search - third-party material demands section 153C; uncorroborated/retracted statements insufficient.

Result: Appeals allowed; impugned orders quashed, additions deleted.

Table of Content
1. reassessment under s.147 invalid post-search; requires s.153a. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. second s.147 notice void ab initio after search triggers s.153a. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. s.153a additions require incriminating material from assessee's search. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. third-party search material invokes s.153c, not s.153a. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 29 , 30)
5. pending s.147 proceedings abate post-search; s.153a mandatory. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 28)
6. uncorroborated statements insufficient for s.153a additions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
7. all appeals allowed; additions deleted for lack of jurisdiction/material. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)

ORDER PER BENCH:

ITA No. 6197/Mum/2024

The present bunch of appeals has been filed by the assessee against the appellate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2014-15 to 2018- 19, whereby the reassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 for the AY 2011-12 and u/s 153A r.ws. 143(3) for the later Assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2017-18 and u/s 143(3) for the AY 2018-19 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been upheld. Since common issues permeate through all these appeals and the factual matrix giving rise to the dispute is substantially identical, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the facts as emanating from AY 2012-13 are taken as the lead year for the assessments made u/s 153A and for the AY 2011-12, separate findings rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining years as well.

2. The assessee in the various grounds of appeal and additional grounds raised before us has primarily challenged the legality of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act for the AY 2011-12 and the consequential additions made by the Assessing Officer. The grievance of the assessee, in substance, is that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are without jurisdiction and void ab initio. According to the assessee, the very basis of the reopening of assessment emanates from investigation material which arose in the context of search related proceedings and therefore, the assessment of such alleged escapement of income could only have been undertaken within the statutory framework governing search assessments. The assessee has further challenged the additions made on merits on account of alleged bogus long term capital gains and the consequential addition of commission expenditure.

3. Brief facts borne out from the record are that the assessee had filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,83,960/-. The said return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and no scrutiny assessment was framed thereafter. Subsequently, information was received from the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata indicating that the assessee had allegedly booked accommodation entries in the nature of long-term capital gains through certain penny stock companies. Based on the said information, the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 dated 06.03.2017. In the reassessment proceedings that followed, the Assessing Officer treated the long-term capital gain declared by the assessee on sale of shares of M/s Shree Nath Commercial & Finance Ltd. as bogus and made an addition of Rs.5,20,78,411/- under section 68 of the Act. Besides the said addition, the Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs.29,24,005/- under section 69C of the Act on account of alleged commission stated to have been paid for arranging the said accommodation entries.

4. The aforesaid additions were confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.1236/Mum/2019. In

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top