IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6177/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-2019)

Nirakumari Virendra Bajaj Flat No.D2, 5^th Floor, Jolly Highrise Apartment, B Bldg., Bandra, Mumbai – 400050.

Maharashtra.

[PAN:AIIPB7000K] .…………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Maharashtra. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Reepal Tralshawala For the Respondent/Department : Shri Asif Karmali Date Conclusion of hearing : 24.02.2025 Pronouncement of order : 07.05.2025

O R D E R

[

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 04/10/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 24/01/2024, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year

2018-2019.

2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee pressed into service Ground No.A (1)(a) to (d) raised in the present appeal challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings which reproduced as under:

“A. Reopening of assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed

1. The Ld. NFAC [CIT(A)] has erred in dismissing the grounds relating to reopening of the assessment in para

6 of the order without appreciating that:

a. notice issued us. 148 of the Act dated 20.04.2022 is beyond 3 years from the relevant AY 2018-19 and the alleged income escaping assessment is less than Rs.50 lakhs, and this ground taken is rejected in para 4.1 of the order by holding that the same is general in nature, however, the ground taken is not general and is specific and hence, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed;

b. without prejudice to the above, even otherwise, there is NO income that has escaped assessment and hence, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

c. without prejudice to the above, the Ld. NFAC [CIT(A)] failed to consider the grounds raised in respect of failure to obtain sanction u/s. 151 of the Act and/or if taken, the same is beyond jurisdiction and/or mechanical approval given without application of mind and hence, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed;

d. without prejudice to the above, the notice u/s.148A(b) and u/s.148 of the Act is issued by jurisdictional AO whereas the notice ought to be issued under faceless regime and not by jurisdictional AO and hence, even on this ground, the reopening of the assessment is bad in law and liable to be quashed.”

3. The Authorized representative for the Assessee submitted that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated in violation of provisions contained in Section 149(1)(a)/(b) of the Act. As per the provisions contained in Section 149(1)(a) of the Act, no notice under Section 148 of the Act could be issued beyond period of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year where the escapement of income is less than 50 lakhs. In the present case, the alleged escapement of income even as per the Assessment Order, dated 24/01/2024, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act is INR.29,56,149/- which is less than threshold limit of INR.50 lakhs. Since, notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 20/04/2022, was issued after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year (i.e., Assessment Year 2018-2019), the same was bad in law having been issued in contravention of the express provisions contained in Section 149(1)(a)/(b) of the Act.

4. Per contra the Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders