IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Atul Nripraj Barar, Income Tax Officer, 6^th Floor, Barar House, 239, Ward 17(1)(2), A.R. Street, Room No.116, 1^st Floor, Vs.

Stationery Market, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai, M.K. Road, Maharashtra – 400 003 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AABPB4988P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee by : Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ld. A.R.

Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. Sr.D.R.

Date of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.09.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2015-16.

2. In the instant case, the Assessee by raising additional grounds of appeal, has challenged the reopening of the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act mainly on the reason that the Assessing Officer (AO) has reopened the assessment proceedings by issuing a notice dated 30.03.2017 u/s 148 of the Act, in response to which the Assessee filed his return of income and sought for the reasons recorded for reopening of the proceedings.

3. The AO vide letter dated 23.08.2017 provided the reasons recorded for reopening of the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and on the very same date also issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 23.08.2017 and u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 23.08.2017, which goes to show that the AO failed to provide an opportunity to raise the objections to the reasons recorded and for issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act and therefore this amounts to violation/contravention of the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) and thus the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and in consequence thereof the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, is required to be declared as invalid and without jurisdiction and consequently needs to be quashed.

4. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee.

5. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record and given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and rival claims of the parties. Somehow the identical issue has also been cropped up in the Assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2014-15 and the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, while considering the identical issue and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra), remitted the matter back to the file of the AO, with liberty to the Assessee to raise objections against reopening of the assessment. The Hon’ble Bench also directed the AO to dispose of the objections first and decide the issues afresh.

6. Thus considering the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the AO, with a direction to provide an opportunity to the Assessee for filing objections against the reopening of the assessment proceedings and in case of filing the same, the AO should dispose of objections first and then only to proceed with the case further in accordance with law and the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the AO for decision afresh.

7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09.04.2025.

Sd/-

(NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)

JUDICIAL MEMBER * Kishore, Sr. P.S.

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy//

By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.