LION STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BENERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

ITA Nos. 7961/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Lion Steel Private Limited, Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asst. 203, Satya Bhavana CHS, C Wing, Commissioner of Income Tax/ Vs. Raghunath Nagar, Thane – 400604, Income Tax Officer, National Maharashtra. Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi, Qureshi Mansion, Thane, Maharashtra. PAN NO. AABCL 5778 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT

: Shri Mandar Vaidya, Adv Assessee by : Shri Surendra Mohan, (SR. DR) Department by : 21.04.2026 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 28.04.2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 24.09.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for Assessment Year (in short ‘A.Y’) 2017-18, raising following grounds: -

Lion Steel Private Limited Lion Steel Private Limited 2 ITA No. 7961/MUM/2025 ITA No.

“Legal Ground I. Order dated 24.09.2025 is passed in breach of principle of Order dated 24.09.2025 is passed in breach of principle of Order dated 24.09.2025 is passed in breach of principle of natural justice 1. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in 1. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in 1. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in passing the order dated 24.09.2025 without affording the Appellant passing the order dated 24.09.2025 without affording the Appellant passing the order dated 24.09.2025 without affording the Appellant an appropriate opportunity of being heard. Thus, an appropriate opportunity of being heard. Thus, the impugned order the impugned order passed under section 250 of the Income passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(the Act) on 24th tax Act, 1961(the Act) on 24th Sept. 2025 without affording the Appellant a proper and reasonable Sept. 2025 without affording the Appellant a proper and reasonable Sept. 2025 without affording the Appellant a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard is in breach of principle of natural justice opportunity of being heard is in breach of principle of natural justice opportunity of being heard is in breach of principle of natural justice and the same be set aside. T and the same be set aside. The said ex-parte order is against the parte order is against the principles of natural justice and hence is unjustified, bad in law, and principles of natural justice and hence is unjustified, bad in law, and principles of natural justice and hence is unjustified, bad in law, and liable to be quashed. liable to be quashed. II. The notice issued on 08 The notice issued on 08-04-2021 under section 148 but dated 2021 under section 148 but dated 31-03-2021 should be regarded as 'Deemed to have been 2021 should be regarded as 'Deemed to have been 2021 should be regarded as 'Deemed to have been issued' subject to new regime's procedural provision. ed' subject to new regime's procedural provision. ed' subject to new regime's procedural provision. 2. The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred by 2. The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred by 2. The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred by issuing a notice under section 148 on 08 issuing a notice under section 148 on 08-04-2021, while the notice 2021, while the notice dated 31-03-2021 without giving the information and materials relied 2021 without giving the information and materials relied 2021 without giving the information and materials relied upon and therefore liable to be quashed. on and therefore liable to be quashed. On Merits III. Addition Addition of of Rs. Rs. 97,23,700/- 97,23,700/ as as Undisclosed Undisclosed Source Source is is unjustified 1. The Ld. NFAC failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has erred in law 1. The Ld. NFAC failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has erred in law 1. The Ld. NFAC failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in adding a sum of Rs. 97,23,700/ and on facts in adding a sum of Rs. 97,23,700/- to the income to the income of the assessee despite of facts that relevant supporting like Stock Register, assessee despite of facts that relevant supporting like Stock Register, assessee despite of facts that relevant supporting like Stock Register, Bank Statement, all Invoices issued by vendor, etc. were submitted in Bank Statement, all Invoices issued by vendor, etc. were submitted in Bank Statement, all Invoices issued by vendor, etc. were submitted in due course of scrutiny proceedings without duly appreciating the due course of scrutiny proceedings without duly appreciating the due course of scrutiny proceedings without duly appreciating the facts and evidences placed on record. facts and evidences placed on record. 2. The Appellant denies the liability on account of interest levied The Appellant denies the liability on account of interest levied The Appellant denies the liability on account of interest levied under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The levy of such under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The levy of such under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. The levy of such interest is unjustified and deserves to be deleted. interest is unjustified and deserves to be deleted.” 2. Before us, at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the at the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment in the present case was assessee submitted that the assessment in the present case was assessee submitted that the assessment in the present case was originally reopened under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 originally reopened under Section 147 of the Income originally reopened under Section 147 of the Income (in short “the Act”) pursuant to a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated (in short “the Act”) pursuant to a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated (in short “the Act”) pursuant to a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated

Lion Steel Private Limited Lion Steel Private Limited 3 ITA No. 7961/MUM/2025 ITA No.

31.03.2021, which was digitally signed on 08.04.2021. Consequent 21, which was digitally signed on 08.04.2021. Consequent 21, which was digitally signed on 08.04.2021. Consequent thereto, an assessment order came to be passed on 30.03.2022, thereto, an assessment order came to be passed on 30.03.2022, thereto, an assessment order came to be passed on 30.03.2022, which was carried in appeal before the learned CIT(A). which was carried in appeal before the learned CIT(A). which was carried in appeal before the learned CIT(A).

2.1 It was further submitted that, subsequent to the judgment of It was further submitted that, subsequent to the judgment of It was further submitted that, subsequent to the judgment of me Court in Union of India and Ors., vs. Union of India and Ors., vs. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal and Ors.,.in [Civil Appeal No.3005 of 2022], Ashish Agarwal and Ors.,.in [Civil Appeal No.3005 of 2022], Ashish Agarwal and Ors.,.in [Civil Appeal No.3005 of 2022], the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings afresh by issuing notice the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings afresh by issuing notice the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings afresh by issuing notice under Section 148A(b), followed by an order under Section 148A(d), under Section 148A(b), followed by an order under Section 148A(d), under Section 148A(b), followed by an order under Section 148A(d), and thereafter a fresh notice under Section 148 dated 27.07.2022. resh notice under Section 148 dated 27.07.2022. resh notice under Section 148 dated 27.07.2022. Pursuant thereto, a fresh re Pursuant thereto, a fresh re-assessment order came to be passed in assessment order came to be passed in May, 2023, against which the assessee has already preferred an May, 2023, against which the assessee has already preferred an May, 2023, against which the assessee has already preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, which is stated to be appeal before the first appellate authority, which is stated to be appeal before the first appellate authority, which is stated to be pending adjudication. udication.

2.2 In the aforesaid factual backdrop, it was contended by the In the aforesaid factual backdrop, it was contended by the In the aforesaid factual backdrop, it was contended by the learned counsel that the present appeal before the Tribunal, arising learned counsel that the present appeal before the Tribunal, arising learned counsel that the present appeal before the Tribunal, arising from the earlier assessment order dated 30.03.2022, has been from the earlier assessment order dated 30.03.2022, has been from the earlier assessment order dated 30.03.2022, has been rendered infructuous, inasmuch as the very foundation of the rendered infructuous, inasmuch as the very foundati rendered infructuous, inasmuch as the very foundati impugned appellate order no longer survives in the eyes of law. impugned appellate order no longer survives in the eyes of law. impugned appellate order no longer survives in the eyes of law.

Lion Steel Private Limited Lion Steel Private Limited 4 ITA No. 7961/MUM/2025 ITA No.

compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra). Consequently, the earlier assessme (supra). Consequently, the earlier assessme (supra). Consequently, the earlier assessment order dated 30.03.2022 ceases to have independent legal existence. dated 30.03.2022 ceases to have independent legal existence. dated 30.03.2022 ceases to have independent legal existence.

3.1 Once the foundational assessment order itself stands eclipsed Once the foundational assessment order itself stands eclipsed Once the foundational assessment order itself stands eclipsed by a subsequent reassessment order passed under the substituted by a subsequent reassessment order passed under the substituted by a subsequent reassessment order passed under the substituted regime, regime, regime, any any any appellate appellate appellate proceedings proceedings proceedings arising arising arising therefrom therefrom therefrom would necessarily lose their substratum. The impugned order of the necessarily lose their substratum. The impugned order of the necessarily lose their substratum. The impugned order of the learned CIT(A), being predicated upon such an assessment, cannot learned CIT(A), being predicated upon such an assessment, cannot learned CIT(A), being predicated upon such an assessment, cannot survive independently. survive independently. 3.2 In view of the foregoing, we hold that the present appeal has In view of the foregoing, we hold that the present appeal has In view of the foregoing, we hold that the present appeal has been rendered infructuous and does been rendered infructuous and does not warrant adjudication on not warrant adjudication on merits. The same is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. merits. The same is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. merits. The same is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed in In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed in In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed in the above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on ounced in the open Court on 28/04/2026. /04/2026.

Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (ANIKESH BENERJEE ANIKESH BENERJEE) (OM PRAKASH OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 28/04/2026 M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S. M. Ranganath Vittal , Sr. P.S.

Lion Steel Private Limited Lion Steel Private Limited 5 ITA No. 7961/MUM/2025 ITA No.

Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.

BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai