IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment year: 2017-18)

DCIT Central Circle-5(3), vs Unify Texturisers Private Limited Mumbai 3^rd Floor, Astral Centre, NM Joshi Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Marg, Opp. Chinchpokli Railway Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Station, Mumbai-400011 Mumbai 400051 PAN: AAACU8565F APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. No.241/Mum/2025 (Arising out of I.T.A. No.5055/Mum/2025 A.Y. :2017-18)

Unify Texturisers Private vs DCIT Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai Limited Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra Kurla 3^rd Floor, Astral Centre, NM Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai Joshi Marg, Opp. Chinchpokli 400051 Railway Station, Mumbai-

400011 PAN: AAACU8565F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Jay Bhansali, Revenue by : Ms. Kavita Kaushik (SR DR)

Date of hearing : 03/02/2026 Date of pronouncement : 10/02/2026 O R D E R Per Bench:

The appeal by the revenue and cross objection by the assessee filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-53, Mumbai [for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A)], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2017-18, date of order 26.06.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax C.C.-53,Mumbai (for brevity the Ld. AO), order passed under section 147 of the Act, date of order 03.05.2023.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return u/sec. 139(1) of the Act. The notice u/sec. 148 of the Act was issued to assessee on 09.06.2021 and after the substitute of Financial year 2021 and construed or treated to be the said notice as 148A in terms of section 148A(b) of the Act by considering the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs Ashish Agarwal, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC). Finally the reassessment was completed with addition in different heads amount to Rs.66,77,836/-, Rs.2,15,00,000/- and Rs.90,88,219/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee challenged both the legal and on merit before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) passed the order by allowing the appeal of the assessee on merit. But on legal grounds the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the grounds of the assessee. Being aggrieved the revenue challenged the merit and the assessee challenged the legal grounds before us.

C.O. No.241/Mum/2025

3. The Ld. AR argued and filed a paper book which is containing page 1 to 411 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR contended that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021. The Ld. AR raised a preliminary objection regarding the validity of the sanction granted under section 151 of the Act for the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. He drew our attention to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 29.06.2021 in paragraph 3 (in APB page-49), wherein the approval for issuance of the said notice was accorded by the Range 8(3), Mumbai. He further invited our attention to the proceedings under section 148A(d) of the Act, initiated pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.05.2022 in UOI vs Ashish Agarwal, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC), wherein paragraph-10, the Ld. AO stated that the requisite approval for passing the order under section 148A(d) and for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act had been obtained from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai (Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai) approval dated 27.06.2022 by a reference no. Pr.CIT-8/148 Approval/2022-23/6/483. The Ld. AR submitted that the sanction granted by the Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai beyond the prescribed period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year was contrary to law and, therefore, vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings. 4. In furtherance of his submissions, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Alag Property Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) rep