##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

“F” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 6666/Mum./2025

(Assessment Year : 2015-16)

Vinod Shyamsunder Pasari,

52, 5^th Floor Lotus Court,

12A DR Annie Besant Road,

Worli S.O.,

Mumbai - 400018 ……………. Appellant

PAN : AAAPP4889N

v/s

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-19(3),

Piramal Chambers,

……………. Respondent

Mumbai – 400013

ITA No. 8087/Mum./2025

(Assessment Year : 2015-16)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-

19(3),

Room No.513, 5^th Floor,

Piramal Chambers, Parel, ……………. Appellant

Mumbai – 400012

v/s

Vinod Shyamsunder Pasari,

52, 5^th Floor Lotus Court,

12A DR Annie Besant Road,

Worli S.O.,

Mumbai - 400018

PAN : AAAPP4889N ……………. Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Snehal Shah,

Revenue by : Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr.DR

Date of Hearing – 23/04/2026 Date of Order – 18/05/2026

2

ITAs No.6666 & 8087/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16)

O R D E R

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The present cross-appeals have been filed by the assessee and the

Revenue against the impugned order dated 11/09/2025, passed under section

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned

CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015-16.

2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised the ground, inter alia, challenging

the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Since

this is a jurisdictional issue, which goes to the root of the matter, we are

considering the same at the outset. During the hearing, the learned

Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that the notice issued

under section 148 of the Act in the present case is beyond the limitation period

specified under section 149(1) of the Act, and thus, the assessment order

passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act is void ab initio.

3. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from

the record, are: The assessee is an individual and for the year under

consideration, filed his return of income on 30/10/2015, declaring an income

of Rs. 28,32,250. During the survey proceedings in the case of M/s Dayal

Tours and Travels (I) Pvt. Ltd., it was found that the assessee was involved in

providing cash loans to various parties through one Shri Gauri Shankar

Chaudhary. Accordingly, on the basis of the said information, proceedings

3

ITAs No.6666 & 8087/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16)

under section 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee and a

notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 21/06/2021.

4. Thereafter, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union

of India vs. Ashish Agrawal, reported in [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC), the original

notice issued under section 148 on 21/06/2021 was deemed to be issued

under section 148A(b) of the Act. Vide show cause notice dated 25/05/2022,

the information and material relied upon by the Revenue was provided to the

assessee and time was granted to the assessee to respond within two weeks

in terms of the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act.

5. After rejecting the objections filed by the assessee, an order under

section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 31/07/2022, declaring that it is a

fit case for the issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act. On the very

same date, i.e. on 31/07/2022, a notice under section 148 of the Act was

issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Vide order dated 24/05/2023

passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, the Assessing

Officer (“AO”) made an addition of Rs. 7.50 crore under section 69A of the Act

in the hands of the assessee. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, upheld

the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. On merits, the

learned CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee and restricted the

addition to Rs. 4.20 crore. Being aggrieved, both the assessee and the

Revenue are in appeal before us.

6. During the hearing, the learned AR submitted that t