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

SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4423/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Aamya Resources LLP Vs. ^{ITO, Ward 24(1)(1)} 1, Wilson House, Old Piramal Chamber, Mumbai – 400012.

Nagardas Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400069.

PAN/GIR No. ABCFA4651A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Satish Aggarwal (virtually appear)

Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 11.10.2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre / CIT(A), Mumbai for the assessment year 2015-

16.

2. Although, assessee had raised number of grounds in the present appeal but at the outset Ld. AR pressed Ground No.4 which is legal in question and it goes to the roots of the case. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate this ground firstly, Ground No. 4, which is reproduced herein below:

4. In law and facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not following the ratio of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal 167 taxmann.com 70 and in confirming the action of the Ld. Ld.AO in reopening the assessment despite the approval / sanction for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act not having in consonance with the provisions of Sec.

151(ii) of the Act.

3. This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO in reopening the assessment despite the approval / sanction for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Not having in consonance with the provisions of Sec. 151(ii) of the Act . In this regard the assessee relied upon his written submissions, which is reproduced herein below:

8. It is undisputed that the notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29.07.2022, was issued to the LLP after obtaining approval from PCIT instead of PCCIT. The Notice under section 148 of the Act, is illegal, bad in law as it is issued 3 years after the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17,and deserves to be quashed.

9. The issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, consequent to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs Ashish Agarwal after obtaining approval from PCIT instead of from PCCIT is contrary to the provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act and the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Rajiv Bansal 301 Taxman 238 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46(SC)[03-10-2024]. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act, is liable to be quashed. (copy of judgement enclosed in paper book at page no. 1-42)

10. The case of the assessee did not get time-barred between the period 20th March 2020 to 31st March 2021 as the alleged escapement of income was more than Rs.50,00,000/- in view of which TOLA was not applicable.

11. Before proceeding further, it would be gainful to refer to the Provisions of section 151 of the Act, after the amendment in the act with effect from 1/4/2021 which reads as under-

151. (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year:

(ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year..."

12. Reference is invited to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Rajiv Bansal 301 Taxman 238 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46(SC) [03-10-2024] wherein in concluding para 114 of its judgment, the Supreme Court has held that-

114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that:

a. After I April 2021, the Income Tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions