IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3873/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

ACIT Vs. Railroad Logistics India Room No. 607, Aayakar Pvt Ltd Bhavan, MK Road, Mumbai C/o, Metal trim, Gala – 400020. No.1, Tankiwala Indl Estate, Steel Made Compound, marol, Maroshi Road, Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AACCR3484J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Satish R. Mody, Adv.

Revenue by Shri Annavaran Kasuri, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 12.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 07.03.2025 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 2012-

13.

2. Both the grounds raised by the revenue are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in terming the order passed by AO as infructuous.

Therefore we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order.

3. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that, the case of the assessee was reopened and assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 on 12.12.2019 determining the total income at Rs.5,04,23.261/-. The said assessment order was subsequently set aside by the PCIT-3, Mumbai vide order u/s 263 dated 09.03.2022. Accordingly, the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 263 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on 25.03.2023 determining the total income at Rs. 9,72,32,058/- and disallowing business expenditure made in cash of Rs.5,85,10,996/-.

4. Consequently, aggrieved assessee preferred appeal and Ld. CIT(A) keeping in view, the order of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No. 2564/Mum/2023, wherein the Bench had quashed the order passed by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. Thus held the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144B of the Act as ‘infructuous’. The operative portion of the order of the CIT(A) is contained in para 5 to 5.2 and the same is reproduced herein below:

5.1 ING Perusal of the case case records shows that the appellant had filed TAY DEPAR appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against order u/s 263 passed by Ld. PCIT on 09.03.2022. The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in ITA No. 2564/Mum/2023 vide order dated 13/01/2025 has quashed the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under:-

"10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Though the Id. AR has argued extensively on various grounds, we would proceed to decide the first issue which is whether or not the assessee is entitled to raise the grounds challenging the reassessment proceeding at the appellate stage in a revisionary proceeding. For this, the Id. AR has relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of and relied on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Clean Coal and Power Limited Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Raipur (C.G.), ITA No. 55/RPR/2021, order dated 31.10.2022. which on identical facts has held that the revisionary proceeding to be a collateral proceeding in which the assessee could challenge the validity of the reassessment order which is nothing but the very basis of the revisionary proceeding. The said decision has relied on the coordinate bench's decision in the case of West Life Development Ltd. Vs. Principle ITA No. 2564/Mum/2023 (Α.Υ. 2012-13) 5, Mumbai, ITA No. 688/M/2016 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 439, order dated 24.06.2016 which has held that the assessee can challenge the validity of the reassessment proceeding that the same is non-est in the eyes of law and that the subsequent revisionary order passed u/s. 263 of the Act would be liable to be quashe