(cid:1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

(Assessment Year: 2017-18)

(Assessment Year: 2017-18)

(Assessment Year: 2017-18)

(Assessment Year: 2017-18)

(Assessment Year: 2017-18)

(Assessment Year: 2017-18)

(Assessment Year: 2017-18)

(Assessment Year: 2017-18)

Assessee by : Shri Ritika Agrawal Respondent by : Shri Asif Karmali SR DR Date of Hearing : 31.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.01.2026

O R D E R

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 52, Mumbai (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18.

2. It is observed that the present appeal is time barred by six days for which the assessee has filed an application for condoning the delay along with an affidavit. On perusal of the same, we deem it fit to hold that the assessee has “sufficient cause” for the said delay. Delay is hereby condoned.

3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. BECAUSE, the CIT(A) has erred in law in treating the impugned assessment order as valid ignoring the subsequent proceedings undertaken by the AO us. 148A on the same reasons as per the order of Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC)

2. BECAUSE, the CIT(A) has erred in law by holding that multiple proceedings can be initiated for the same assessment year. disregarding the fact that the subsequent proceedings under Section 148A are based on the same reasons as the additions made in the impugned assessment order.

3. BECAUSE, the CIT(A) has erred in law in treating the impugned assessment order as valid failing to consider the decision of hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v. ACIT and Ors, bearing WP no. 5293 of 2022, order dated 05/05/2022 which is squarely applicable in the present case wherein the Court has held that in view of the decision of Ashish Agarwal (supra). all assessment orders passed under such notices issued after 01/04/2021 stand quashed.

4. Without Prejudice, BECAUSE, notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act by the AO and approval granted by JCIT, Central Range 4. Mumbai u/s. 151 and the impugned assessment order is illegal, invalid and wholly without jurisdiction.

5. BECAUSE the notice dated 01/04/2021 issued 148 is invalid since the same is issued without following the machinery procedure prescribed u's. 148A of the Act as upheld by various courts including the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Communications Transformation Services and other bearing Writ Petition no. 1334 of 2021. order dated 29/03/2022.

6. BECAUSE the AO has erred in issuing notice dated 01/04/2021 u/s. 148 without obtaining prior approval of "specified authority" under the amended section 151, as mandated under the proviso to Section 148.

7. BECAUSE, even the so-called approval u/s. 151 by JCIT, Central Range 4, Mumbai is also invalid since it has been granted mechanically.

8. BECAUSE, the impugned assessment order is bad in law since the reasons for reopening of assessment are recorded solely on "suspicion" without bringing on record any tangible material.

9. BECAUSE, the AO has erred in reopening of assessment on the basis of "borrowed satisfaction" of information from survey party without any independent corroboratic. or application of mind and preliminary enquiries.

10. BECAUSE, there is no failure on the part of the Appellant to disclose material facts necessary for assessment.

11. BECAUSE, the AO failed to deal with the specific objections raised by the Appellant against the "reasons recorded" while disposing of the objections vide order dated 30/12/2021 which go to the very root of the matter.

12. BECAUSE, the AO has erred in law and on facts in treating the loan from Granth Exim Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained in AY 2015-16 and ac