Gedalia Multitrading Pvt. Ltd. Vs NFAC/ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
In Gedalia Multitrading Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO (A.Y. 2018-19), the assessee challenged reopening under the new regime on the ground that the notice u/s 148A(b) was issued without furnishing enquiry reports and supporting material, thereby preventing effective reply. The Tribunal noted that only reasons recorded were shared, while underlying material forming basis of reopening was not supplied.
The ITAT held that under the amended reassessment framework, all material relied upon must be provided to the assessee to enable meaningful response, as reinforced by the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal. Failure to supply such material vitiates the proceedings for breach of natural justice.
Accordingly, the order passed u/s 148A(d) and subsequent reassessment were held bad in law and quashed, with liberty to the Revenue to restart proceedings from the stage of notice u/s 148A(b) after supplying relevant material, subject to limitation. The assessee’s appeal was allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
Present appeal filed by assessee arises out of order dated 19/09/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the Ld.CIT(A)”], for Assessment Year 2018-19, on the following grounds of appeal:-
“The following are Grounds of Appeal against the Order dated 19.09.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A) “) bearing DIN.: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080910319(1).
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the jurisdictional requirements to re-open the case of Appellant were not fulfilled in terms of Section 147 to Section 151 of the Act.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the books of accounts of the Appellant in violation of conditions stipulated under Section 145(3) of the Act.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not discussing Appellant’s case on merits or adjudicating the individual grounds raised by Appellant by considering the statement of facts as well as relevant material available on record including Appellant’s Written Submissions.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the Impugned Order in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Ld. AO had passed the Assessment Order in gross violation of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in merely confirming the additions made by Ld. AO under Section 68 read with Section 115 BBE of the Act, without any independent reasoning or application of mind thereof.
7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting the Appellant an opportunity of personal hearing specifically requested for, before passing of the Impugned Order.
8. The appellant craves to add, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal.”
2. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that, in Ground No. 1, the assessee is raising a legal issue challenging the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the new regime.
