IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 6122/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14)

ITA 6123/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15)

ITA 6124/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16)

ITA 6125/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)

ITA 6126/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18)

Lalit Surajprakash Garg, v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income

6308, 4^th Phase, Upper Govind Tax, Central Circle – 6(2), (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)

Nagar, Malad (East), Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai–400097, Mumbai–400051, Maharashtra Maharashtra (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:3)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:15)(cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)PAN/GIR No: AEHPG8197B Appellant/(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) .. Respondent/(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:12)(cid:13)

Appellant by : Shri Gaurav Bansal,CA Respondent by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing 08.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.04.2025 (cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:8)(cid:19)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:6)O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.]: -

The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the orders of even dates as passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), CIT(A)-54, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment orders passed u/s.147/144Bof the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”]for Assessment Years [A.Y.] 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18. Since most of the issues are common and also the fact that appeals were heard together, they are being taken up together for adjudication vide this composite order for the sake of brevity.

2. It may be stated at the outset that in the course of hearing before us, the assessee has raised certain Additional grounds of appeal whereby it has challenged the validity of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act as well reassessment orders in all the above assessment years claiming to be bad in law and ab initio void.Since the grounds are legal in nature and go into the very roots of the assessment orders, in the light of the decision of in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC),they are admitted for adjudication at the outset in the paras to follow.

ITA 6122/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14)&

ITA 6123/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15)

Additional Ground(common in both the AYs):

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s

148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O. is an invalid notice and the reassessment order passed thereafter is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad-in-law.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has erred by issuing the notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 after the Surviving Time Limit. In this regard, the assessee relies on the judicial decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC).

3. Since the facts involved in both the above captioned appeals are exactly identical as also the applicable provisions of the Act,they are being adjudicated together as below.

4. Before us in the course of hearing, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the notices issued under section 148 of the Act in both the AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are beyond the limitation period provided in section 149(1) of the Act,and therefore, the re-assessment orders passed are void ab initio. He contented that in both the years,based on certain information,the AO issued original notices u/s 148 of the Act on 28.06.2021.Subsequently, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC), these notices were to be issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act. Later,vide show cause notices dated 31.05.2022, the information and materials relied upon by the Revenue were provided to the assessee and time was granted to the assessee to respond was on or before 14.06.2022 in terms of