INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22 KALYAN , KALYAN vs. RAHUL RATANLAL HARCHWANI, ULHASNAGAR

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: Rahul Ratanlal Harchwani,. Mumbai.

These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as revenue challenging the different impugned orders respectively passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)
/ CIT(A) for the assessment year 2014-15 & 2016-17. 2. Since all the issues involved in these three appeals are common and identical and belongs to one assessee therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed. Firstly we shall take
ITA No. 3348/Mum/2025, for A.Y 2014-15 as lead case and facts narrated therein.
ITA No. 3348/Mum/2025, A.Y 2014-15
3. The assessee has challenged the notice u/s 148 of the Act on the ground that the same is not within limitation. However Ld. CIT(A) had passed a detailed order the operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced herein below:
6.1 The appellant argues that as per the pre-amended provisions of section 149, the six year period for reopening of assessment ended on 31.03.2021. The notice u/s 148
was issued on 08.04.2021 after the limitation period ended.
Notice u/s 148 could not be issued as per the amended provisions (which took effect from 01.04.2021) in a case which had become time barred as per the pre-amended provisions.
6.2 In this case, the six years from end of the relevant assessment year elapsed on 31.03.2021. However in this case AO had the benefit of relaxation of time limits provided by TOLA.
Rahul Ratanlal Harchwani,. Mumbai.

2020 to 31-3-2021, till 30-6-2021. Hence the argument of the appellant that notice u/s 148 is time barred is not valid.
4. Ld. CIT(A) considered the net effect of TOLA and notification there under, wherein date of limitation for completion of any proceeding or issuance of notice falling between 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021 was extended to 30.06.2021. Now it has been argued that the Coordinate
Pvt Ltd, in ITA No. 4812, 4814 & 4816/Mum/2024, has held that “even under TOLA, the time limit for issuance of notice u/s 148 had expired on 31.06.2021 for both the assessment years i.e 2013-14 & 2014-15”
5. Apart from the above Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Manish Financial in ITA No. 5050/Mum/2024, and argued that approval for issuance of notice u/s 148 has not been obtained from “appropriate Authority”
6. Whereas on the contrary Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.
7. After having heard the counsels for both the parties at length and after going through the documents placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities and considering the judgments cited before us, we noticed that the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Pushpak Realities (supra) was available when Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order.
Rahul Ratanlal Harchwani,. Mumbai.

Even the other argument of approval not sought from the “appropriate authority” was not even argued or discussed before Ld. CIT(A).
8. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee we are of the view that since the assessee could not effectively contest before Ld. CIT(A) by raising these grounds. Therefore one more opportunity is being given to the assessee to represent his case before
Ld. CIT(A) by raising all the arguments now being raised before us. Hence, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh by providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
9. Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
4315/Mum/2025, A.Y 2014-15
10. Since, we have restored the appeal filed by the assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision, therefore in view of our decision in ITA
No.
3348/Mum/2025 for the same Assessment year, the Rahul Ratanlal Harchwani,. Mumbai.

present appeal is also restored to Ld. CIT(A) to be decided along with ITA No. 3348/Mum/2025. Hence, this appeal also stands allowed for statistical purpose.
3349/Mum/2025, A.Y 2016-17
11. As the facts and circumstances in this appeal is identical to ITA No. 3348/Mum/2025 for the A.Y 2014-15
(except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the present appeals also stands allowed for statistical purposes.
12. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue’s appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13/11/2025 (PRABHASH SHANKAR)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
(SANDEEP GOSAIN)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Mumbai:

Dated: 13/11/2025

KRK, Sr. PS.
Rahul Ratanlal Harchwani,. Mumbai.

Copy of the order forwarded to:

(1)The Appellant
(2) The Respondent
(3) The CIT
(4) The CIT (Appeals)
(5) The DR, I.T.A.T.By order

(Asstt.