Jignesh Mahesh Gohel Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Time-Barred 148 Notice Dooms 263 Revision – ITAT Mumbai Quashes PCIT’s Order; Non-Est Reassessment Cannot Be Revised
Assessee had originally filed return declaring income of Rs. 5.01 lakh. On receipt of information from the Investigation Wing that the Assessee had allegedly paid ‘On Money’ of Rs. 81.12 lakh to M/s Runwal Group for purchase of a shop, AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 & finally passed reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B on 30.03.2023 accepting the returned income. PCIT later invoked Explanation 2 to s.263 holding that AO had failed to enquire into the issue of ‘On Money’ & therefore set aside the assessment directing fresh verification.
Before the Tribunal, Assessee argued that the very notice u/s 148 issued on 28.07.2022 was time barred in view of the Supreme Court decision in UOI v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). It was also contended that once the reopening itself was invalid, the reassessment order was non-est in law & consequently PCIT had no jurisdiction to revise a non-existent order. Further, it was submitted that even on merits, the issue of ‘On Money’ was the very basis of the reopening & was duly examined in the reassessment proceedings. Hence, mere non-mentioning of the fact in the final order did not mean failure on the part of the AO.
