##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 978/Ahd/2026 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Aditya Multipack Solutions Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward 3(1)(1),

402, Sheel Complex, Mayur Ahmedabad Colony, Mithakhali Six Roads,

Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat -380009

[PAN : AADCN 2518 C]

(Appellant) .. (Respondent Appellant represented by : Shri Sudhir Mehta, Advocate

Respondent represented by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.08.2026

O R D E R

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated

14.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year 2015-16.

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“I. JURISDICTION INVALID REOPENING UNDER SECTION 147 The reassessment proceedings are bad in law and liable to be quashed because: • The reopening is based on borrowed satisfaction, without independent

verification.

• There is absence of "reason to believe", as mandated under Section 147.

• The AO has acted mechanically on external information.

• If the very basis of reopening (reason to believe) is invalid, the entire reassessment collapses. "Sublato fundamento cadit opus"

(When the foundation is removed, the structure falls)

II NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 153C – FATAL JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT

ITA No. 978/Ahd/2026 Aditya Multipack Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO Asst.Year : 2015-16

- 2–

• The alleged material originates from search under Section 132 conducted on third parties.

• As per law, such cases must be dealt with under Section 153C. which requires:

- Recording of satisfaction, - Iden tification of incriminating material belonging to the assessee,

- Prop er transfer of such material.

• The AO has bypassed this mandatory procedure and resorted to Section

147, which is impermissible.

• When the Act provides a specific mechanism (Section 153C), general provisions (Section 147) cannot be used as a substitute.

• "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius"

(Express mention of one thing excludes others)

III. REOPENING BASED SOLELY ON THIRD-PARTY MATERIAL - INVALID • The reopening lacks independent corroboration.

• Reliance solely on third-party statements/material is legally unsustainable.

• Reopening cannot be based on unverified, borrowed information without nexus.

• Mere allegation without proof of involvement cannot justify adverse inference. "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea"

(The act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty)

IV. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE • Opportunity provided was illusory:

- SCN issued: 25.03.2022 - Time allowed: ~1 day i.e. 26.03.2022

- Order passed: 28.03.2022 • This violates fundamental principles of fairness.

• Providing extremely short time makes compliance impossible. vitiating proceedings. "Lex non cogit ad impossibilia"

(The law does not compel the impossible)

• No person should be condemned without a fair opportunity of being heard.

"Audi) alteram partem"

(Hear the other side)

V. VIOLATION OF SECTION 144B (FACELESS ASSESSMENT SCHEME)

• Mandatory procedure under Section 144B not followed:

- No meaningful opportunity, - No proper consideration of reply,

- Order passed mechanically.

ITA No. 978/Ahd/2026 Aditya Multipack Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO Asst.Year : 2015-16

- 3–

VI. ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69A LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE • The addition of ₹2,00,69,550/- is arbitrary and unjustified because:

- No proof of ownership of alleged money.

- No evidence of actual receipt, - No nexus between assessee and alleged transactions.

- Burden of proof wrongly shifted to assessee.

- The AO must prove unexplained money; assessee is not required to disprove vague allegations. "Ei incu