ACIT-5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. NASHER MILES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

The instant Appeals and Cross Objections respectively preferred by the filed by the Revenue Department and the Assessee, are having involved identical issue based on the similar facts and therefore for the sake of brevity, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this Composite order, by taking into consideration facts and issues involved in as a lead case. it is observed that there is a delay of 79 days in filing of the instant appeal by the Revenue Department, on which the Revenue Department has claimed that the delay of 79 days before the Tribunal was neither intentional nor deliberate but because of the fact that the case was transferred to charge of ACIT (Judicial) to Principal CIT-5, Mumbai less than before a month and thus the delay in submitting the record and filing the appeal before the Tribunal is neither intentional nor malafide but because of the aforesaid reason.

Considering the delay which is otherwise minuscule and reason stated for the delay as reasonable, plausible and unintentional, the delay of 79 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned.

Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that in the instant case admittedly the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 was issued after 3 years from the end of the A.Y. 2016-17 under new regime reassessment, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 with the approval of PCIT-8, Mumbai but not of the Principle Chief Commissioner or Principle Director General or Chief Commissioner Or & 5078/M/2025 & Co No. 254 & 255/M/2025 Nasher Mills Private Limited Director General as mandated u/s 151(ii) of the Act and therefore the ld. Commissioner by respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Rajeev Bansal case and some to the judgment of the Tribunal, including in the case of ACIT vs Surya Ferrous Alloys (P.) Ltd. (2024) 169 taxmann.com 736 (Mumbai-Trib.) quashed re-assessment order by mainly holding that the approval for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act was not obtained by specified authority u/s 151(ii) of the Act i.e. Principle Chief Commissioner or Principle Director General or Chief Commissioner Or Director General, hence, following the judgment in the case of Rajeev and subsequent ITAT orders, the re-assessment order is quashed by allowing appeal filed by the Assessee against the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144b of the Act dated 25.05.2023.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record and given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. As the ld. commissioner examined the issue in the context of the statutory provisions, as applicable thereto for issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act, under the new regime and therefore in our considered view, the decision of the Ld. Commissioner, in quashing the re-assessment is not only based on the statutory provisions but also based on the judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Union of India vs Rajeev Bansal case and by the tribunal in various cases, as quoted by ld. commissioner in para 2.2.3 in page 11-12 of the impugned order.

Thus, considering the decision of the Ld. Commissioner, as valid in law and logical and based on the judgment referred to above, we do not find any infirmity, impropriety or illegality and therefore the decision of ld. Commissioner, is upheld. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the revenue department stands dismissed.

Coming to CO Nos. 254/M/2025 and 255/M/2025, we observe that same are more or less in support of impugned orders. Thus, the same are also dismissed being infructuous.

In the result, both the appeal filed by the revenue department stands dismissed, whereas the Cos. filed by the Assessee stands dismissed as infructuous.