ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The Assessee Rajesh Bansal has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 29/08/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, and the Assessee namely Malwa Packaging and also the Revenue have assailed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 26/08/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-23. Since, identical questions to be decided in the captioned appeals, the above Appeals are taken up together and the parties have made respective arguments.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 03/08/2022 against the Assessees and an assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act against Rajesh Bansal (Appellate No. 1herein) and an assessment order dated 31/03/2024 also came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act against Malwa Packaging (Appellate No. 1 herein) by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the above said assessment orders Assessees have preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 29/08/2025, partly allowed the appeals of the Assessees. As against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A)dated 29/08/2025, Assessee’s have preferred Appeal in ITA No. 6115/Del/2025 and 5756/Del/2025 respectively. The Revenue has filed Appeal in the case of Malwa Packaging in ITA No. 7586/Del/2025 by challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 26/08/2025.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) is bad in law as mandatory approval u/s 148B of the Act has not been obtained. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer has neither complied with the provision of Section 148 of the Act nor the provisions of Section 148B of the Act. The Ld. Counsel by relying on plethora of judicial precedents sought for allowing the Appeals of the Assessee and dismissal of the appeal of the Revenue.

4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessments have been framed in accordance with law and an additions have been made based on the merits, which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal, thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 03.08.2022 i.e. F.Y. 2022-23 relevant to A.Y. 2023-24. The A.Y. 2022- 23 is the year immediately preceding the year of search. For the year under consideration the assessing officer has issued notice u/s 143(2) on 12/06/2023 and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. However, the Ld. A.O. has not complied with the provisions of section 148/148B of the Act. For the year under consideration i.e., A.Y. 2022- 23 the assessing officer was mandatorily required to follow the procedures as per section 148 of the Act for initiating the assessment proceedings and shall pass the assessment order after obtaining approval of specified authority under section 148B of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessing officer has neither complied with the provisions of section 148 of the Act nor the provisions of section 148B of the Act. For the sake of ready reference, provisions of Explanation 2 to section 148B of the Act is reproduced as under: -

-“ Explanation 2. For the purposes of this section, where,

(1) a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A, on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, in the case of the assessee; or

(ii)a survey is conducted under section 133A, other than under sub- section (2A) of that section, on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, in the case of the assessee; or

(iii)the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned under section 132 or section 132A in case of any other person on or after the 1st day of Apri