Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Income Tax

Pre-29 March 2022 Faceless Reassessment Without Jurisdiction: ITAT Mumbai

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 12439
Case Name
LE Meilleur Global Trade Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year
2013-14
Subscribe to download.

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Advertisement

LE Meilleur Global Trade Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Summary: The assessee, Le Meilleur Global Trade Pvt. Ltd., challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 31.10.2025, which arose from a reassessment order dated 31.03.2022 for AY 2013-14. The reassessment had been framed under sections 147 read with 143(3) and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The assessee had filed its return on 30.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs 27,910/-. According to the assessment records, information was received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had sold shares of JRI Industries & Infrastructure Ltd., described in the proceedings as a penny stock, for Rs 1,55,95,327/-. The Assessing Officer observed that the income had not been declared and reopened the assessment by notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2021, after approval under section 151. The assessee filed its return in response on 17.02.2022.

The appeal contained two additional jurisdictional grounds and four other grounds. The additional grounds challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) on 30.12.2021 and alleged that the reassessment was void because the procedure under section 144B(1)(iii) had not been properly intimated and served. The other grounds challenged the validity of the section 148 notice, the CIT(A)’s order, and the addition under section 68 of Rs 1,55,95,327/- representing the sale consideration of STT-paid listed shares. The assessee relied on documentary material including contract-cum-bills, confirmation, demat statement, global report, bank statements and bhav copy, and contended that the shares had been held for more than 12 months and sold on the BSE with STT and other charges. It also contended that SEBI had made no allegation or contrary order against the assessee or stock broker, that it was not related to directors/promoters or exit providers, and that contrary third-party material had not been supplied for rebuttal or cross-examination.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 22,371

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.