DCIT, CC-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BHAGAT JEE STEELS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.2968/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT, CC-1(1)……………………………….………………………….Appellant Office of the Deputy Commissioner of No. 305, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva 110, Shanti pally, Kolkata- 700107 [PAN No. AABCB6072D] Vs. M/s. Bhagat Jee Steels Pvt.Ltd……………………..…………….………... Respondent, Room No. 428, 21, Center point, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata- 700001 Appearances by: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Smt Ruchika Sharma, SR. DR ,appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 28, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order :May 20 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 20.01.2025 of the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 147 of the Assessment Year 2016-17 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 the contents of the petition we find the reason mentioned is bona fide and genuine, and accordingly we condone the delay.

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 getting interest income under the head other income for providing bogus unsecured loan to different beneficiaries (iv) the admission of shri. Mukesh Banka vide his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the 1.T. Act, 1961, 30.05.2018 & 19.07.2018 that these companies are only paper companies and managed and controlled by Mr. Banka for the purpose of providing accommodation entries. As per the information the assessee company had received accommodation entries of Rs. 55,00,116/- from these paper companies. The Assessing Officer issued Notice under section 148 of the Act on 20.07.2022 after passing order under section 148A(d) of the Act, subsequently Notice under section 143(2) as well as under section 142(1) of the Act issued and served to the appellant assessee and assessment completed after addition of Rs, 55,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act and Rs. 3,85,151 disallowed under section 37(1) of the Income tax Act.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Assessment order dated 30.05.2023 passed under section 147 of the Income tax Act 1961. The appeal filled on 17.11.2023 resulting in a delay of 141 days beyond the prescribed period of filling.

The appellant has submitted a detailed explanation for the delay, citing reasons The Instant order u/s 147 in this case was 3

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 passed on 30.05.2023 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, for the AY 2016-17. The time for filing the appeal before the CIT(A) expired on 29.06.2023. We state and submit that on receipt of the instant order, it was apparent that total assessed loss was Rs. -6,64,06,935/- which led us to understand that no appeal needs to be filed in this case. On receipt of the penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the act, we sought legal opinion from our Income Tax Professional and has come to the conclusion that an appeal has to be filed before your honour with a petition of condonation of delay. We state and submit that the aforesaid delay is neither deliberate nor willful; but due to lack of understanding as a common person. In the light of the aforesaid submission we most humbly request you to condone the said delay in filing of the instant appeal.

In view of the submissions made. I find the reasons for the delay to be bona fide and reasonable. The delay was neither deliberate nor caused by any malafide intent. The appellant has demonstrated that they acted promptly upon realizing the necessity to file the appeal. It is well established that the law of limitation is not intended to defeat the cause of justice but to ensure timely resolution of disputes. Refusal to condone the delay in this case would result in a meritorious matter being dismissed at the threshold, causing injustice. Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice and guided by the principles laid down in the various judicial pronouncements, the delay of 141 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

5.01 I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant and perused the observations of the Ld. AO in the

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 impugned order and objections raised by the appellant in this regard and from the material on record, it is noted that, in this case the Notice u/s 148 of the Act was originally issued on 23.04.2021 under old regime by issuing the notice uls 148 of the Act and from the recorded reasons it is noted that the Ld. AO was in receipt of Information that the appellant had received accommodation entries of Rs. 55,00,116 from the paper companies of Mukesh Banka, which was deemed to be a notice issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act under new regime pursuant to the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal. Thereafter the Notice u/s 148 of the Act was finally issued on 20.07.2022 after following the process prescribed by the Judgement in the case of Ashish Agarwal the Hon'ble Supreme Court concurring with the judgment of Ashish Agarwal, held that the Officers would have to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed u/s 148A of the Act and pass an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act as to whether the case was fit for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. It was also held that the assessee are free to use all defences available with them to defend their ease and the Assessing Officers were directed to pass an order uis 148A(d) of the Act after considering the assessee's objections and the materials available on record.

5.02 In pursuance to the aforesaid Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata, (the JAO) issued a letter dated 02.06.2022 to be deemed notice u/s 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 asking the Assessee to show cause as to why a Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be issued in the case of the assessee since he had the 5

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 Information which suggested that income chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2016-17 escaped assessment for that year. The JAO also directed the assessee to furnish the submission along with relevant corroborative documents/evidence explaining genuineness, creditworthiness and source of the funds(s) of the alleged transaction(s).

5.03 The JAO, furnished only an Annexure A which contained summery of allegation in respect of accommodation entries of Rs.55,00,116 only. The said allegation was based on the basis of a search and seizure operation in the case of Banka Group conducted on 21-05-2018.

5.03.1 The Assessing Officer in spite of such clear and specific directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, not provided to the Appellant materials and details relied on by Ao such as:-

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 is completely violation of the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal

Sanction for issue of notice.

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.

in assessee's case from the perusal of para 3 of the notice issued under section 148 for AY 2016-17 we notice that the same is issued with the prior approval of PGIT (C)-1 Kolkata accorded on date 19.07.2022 vide reference No. Pr.Cit (C) -1 /Tech/Kol/Approval 148A(d)& 148/2022-23/2695

The period of three years have elapsed as of 31.03.2020 and the notice is issued beyond three years on 20.07.2022. Therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the approval should have been obtained under the amended provisions of section 151 of the Act Le the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner whereas the approval has been obtained from Pr.CIT as stated in the notice under section 148 itself. Therefore, I see merit in the contention of the assessee that the notice under section 148 for AY 2016-17 is issued without obtaining the prior approval from the appropriate authority. Accordingly I hold that the notice under section 148 is invalid and the consequent assessment under section 147 is liable to be quashed.

5.06. Further I have carefully considered the action of the Ld. A.O in making the impugned addition of Rs.55,00,000/- on account of alleged fictitious loan from Bhooteshwar sales Pvt Ltd as also equally carefully perused the submissions of the appellant and find that the appellant had submitted all necessary documentation before the Learned Assessing Officer (A.O.) to substantiate its claim regarding the loan received from Bhooteshwar Sales Pvt. Ltd. 8

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 Specifically, the appellant provided copy of loan confirmation, PAN and IT acknowledgements copies of Audited Balance sheet, P&L accourits, coples of bank statements evidencing the source of the loan. These documents sufficiently demonstrated the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan creditor. Despite these submissions, the Ld. A.O. appears to have overlooked these vital pieces of evidence and explanations. Instead, the Ld. AO relied solely on information received from the Investigation Wing without providing any independent evidence to establish that the unsecured loan was a mere paper transaction. Furthermore, the Ld. A.O. failed to grant the appellant an opportunity for cross- examination with Mr. Mukesh Banka, nor did the A.O. conduct any inquiries to contradict the appellant's submissions or bring forth contrary evidence. This lack of due diligence and failure to adhere to the principles of natural justice renders the findings of the Ld. A.O. unsustainable.

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 The foregoing conclusion finds support in the judgment of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Shri Nemi Chand Kothari Vs CIT (264 ITR 254) wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as follows:

When one reads carefully the provisions of section 68, one finds nothing in section 68 to show that the scope of inquiry under section 88 by the revenue department shall remain confined to the transactions, which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor nor does the wording of section 68 indicate that section 68 does not authorise the revenue department to make inquiry into the source(s) of the creditor and sub-creditor. The language employed by section 68 cannot be read to impose such limitations on the powers of the Assessing Officer. The logical conclusion, therefore, has to be that an inquiry under section 68 need not necessarily be kept confined by the Assessing Officer to the transactions, which took place between the assessee and his creditor but the same may be extended to the transactions, which have taken place between the creditor and his sub-creditor Thus, while the Assessing Officer is, under section 68, free to look into the source(s) of the creditor and/or of the sub-creditor, the burden on the assessee under section 68 is definitely limited. This limit has been imposed by section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act [Para 12)

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 fact-situation, which is actually within the special knowledge of the assessee, hence, it is the burden of the assessee to show the source(s) from where he has received the loans. Once the assessee discloses the source(s) from where he has received the loans, his burden under section 100 stands discharged and the onus then shifts to the Assessing Officer to show, if he wants to beat the loans as an income of the assessee from undisclosed sources, that the transaction(s) between the assessee and the creditor is/are not genuine or that the creditor has no creditworthiness and/or that the money, which has been received by the assessee in the form of loans, actually belongs to the assessee himself. [Para 13]

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 sub-creditors, actually belongs to or was of, the assessee himself. In other words, while section 68 gives the liberty to the Assessing Officer to enquire into the source sources from where the creditor has received the money, section 106 makes the assessee liable to disclose only the source(s) from where he has himself received the credit and it is not the duty of the assessee to show the source(s) of his creditor nor is it the burden of the assessee to prove the creditworthiness of the source(s) of the sub-creditors. If section 106 and section 68 are to stand together, which they must, then the interpretation of section 68 has to be in such a way that it does not make section 106 redundant. Hence, the harmonious construction of section 106 of the Evidence Act and section 68 of the Income-tax Act will be that though apart from establishing the identity of the creditor, the assessee must establish the genuineness of the transaction as well as the creditworthiness of his creditor, the burden of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions as well as the creditworthiness of the creditor must remain confined to the transactions, which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor. What follows, as a corollary, is that it is not the burden of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions between his creditor and sub-creditors nor is it the burden of the assessee to prove that the sub- creditor had the creditworthiness to advance the cash credit to the creditor from whom the cash credit has beer, eventually, received by the assessee. It,

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 therefore, further logically follows that the creditor's creditworthiness has to be judged, vis-a-vis, the transactions, which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor, and it is not the business of the assessee to find out the source of money of his creditor or of the genuineness of the Bransaction, which took place between the creditor and sub-creditor anditor creditworthiness of the sub-creditors, for, these aspects may not be within the special knowledge of the assessee [Para 15)

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 the assessee from undisclosed sources unless there is evidence, direct or circumstantial, to show that the amount, which has been advanced by the sub-creditor to the creditor, had actually been received by the sub-creditor from the asessee (Para 19]

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 come to the hands of the creditors from the hands of sub- creditors, had actually been received by the sub-creditors from the assessee. In the absence of any such evidence on record, the Assessing Officer could not have treated the said amounts as income derived by the assessee from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal seriously fell in error in treating the said amounts as income derived by the assessee from undisclosed sources merely on the failure of the sub-creditors to prove their creditworthiness. [Para 20)

“5. Heard Stu Sudhir Mahta learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Assessing Officer directed to make the addition of Rs. 33.55.011/- under Section 68 of the income Tax Act with respect to 17 lenders However, it has been found that with respect to most of the lenders, except to, necessary documents, inclusive of confirmation with name address and PAN Numbers, copy of the IT return and acknowledgment, balance sheet and profit and these account and computation of total income in respect of all the parties, except heo parties, were furnished before the Assessing Offer Even with respect to the remaining two depositors the 15

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 assessee filed the confirmation, address and PAN Numbers. Under the circumstances, when it was found that the assessee already discharged the initial onus cast upon him with respect to all the creditors and accordingly when the CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 33,55.011/- made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and consequently deleted the disallowance of Rs. 3.10 478, which was made with respect to interest and when the same has been confirmed by the ITAT, it cannot be said that ITAT has committed any and/or illegality, which calls for the interference of this Court

In paragraph 11, ITAT has observed and held as under:-

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that during the year the assessee had received loan from 17 parties aggregating to 33.35,011. The details of which are listed at page 2 of Assessing Officer order CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that the assessee had filed before Assessing Officer the confirmations with name, address, PAN Number, copy of ledger account, copy of balance sheet and profit and loss account, copy of income Tax returns and computation of total income in respect of all the parties except two depositors. With respect to the two depositors, the assessee had filed confirmation, address and PAN Numbers and hence the assessee had also discharged the initial onus cast upon the assessee with respect to the two creditors He has further noted that the loans were active through cheques and the loan account ware duly reflected in the balance sheet of lenders CIT(A) has further held once the onus was fulfilled by the assessee, it was for the Assessing Officer to examine and bring any material on record

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 which may help in rebutting the onus of assessee. The Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record in its support CITTA) while deleting the addition has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dy. CITV Rohini Builders [2002] 258 ITR 360 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Orissa Corpn. Chi 153 ITR 78. Before us, nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to controvert the findings of CIT(A) Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of N.R. Portfolio (supra). We however find that the ratio of the aforesaid Delhi High Court decision are distinguishable on facts and therefore cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus dismiss this ground of revenue.

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 5.06.3 The foregoing conclusion finds support in the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Dataware Pvt Ltd [GA No.2856 of 2011] wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as follows:

"In our opinion, in such circumstances, the Assessing officer of the assessee cannot take the burden of assessing the profit and loss account of the creditor when admittedly the creditor himself is an income tax assesses. After getting the PAN number and getting the information that the creditor is assessed under the Act, the Assessing officer should enquire from the Assessing Officer of the creditor as to the genuineness of the transaction and whether such transaction has been accepted by the Assessing officer of the creditor but instead of adopting such course, the Assessing officer himself could not enter into the return of the creditor and brand the same as unworthy of credence. So long it is not established that the return submitted by the creditor has been rejected by its Assessing Officer, the Assessing officer of the assessee is bound to accept the same as genuine when the Identity of the creditor and the genuineness of transaction through account payee cheque has been established"

Respectfully following the ratio laid down in these judgments and having regard to the facts discussed in the foregoing, I therefore hold that the addition of Rs.55,00,000/- made u/s 68 was not tenable on facts and in law and the same is deleted. As a natural corollary, the further addition of Rs.3,85,151/- as interest on the alleged bogus loan as made by the Ld. A.O also has no legs to stand on and is therefore deleted.

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied revenue preferred appeal by taking the following the following grounds: -

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 clearly established that the assessee had routed its own unaccounted money through accommodation entries.

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 6. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court, in subsequent decision titled as UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (167 Taxmann.com 70 dated 03-10- 2024), after the fall out of its own decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra), dealt with the issueof sanction of the specified authority and concluded that TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified u/s.151. As per this decision, the test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Sec. 151 of the new regime would be that if the time limit of three years from the end of the Assessment Year falls between 20-03-2020 and 31- 03-2021 then in such a case, the specified authority u/s.151(i) has extended time till 30-06-2021 to grant the approval. According to the Hon'ble Court, Assessing Officers were required to issue the re- assessment notice u/s.148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Act read with TOLA All notices issued beyond the surviving period were held to be time barred and liable to be set aside. The crucial points have elaborately been dealt with by Hon'ble Court in Part E of its decision in para 73 to 78 which are extracted below:

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17

(i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under Section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner, and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and 6) If income escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner, and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 segime. Therefore, in terms of Ashish Agarwal (supra), after 1 April 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime. The effect of Section 151 of the new regime is thus:

(i) If income escaping assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of three years; and

(ii) If income escaping assessment is more than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, and (b) after three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General.

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 77. Parliament enacted TOLA to ensure that the interests of the Revenue are not defeated because the assessing officer could not comply with the pre- conditions due to the difficulties that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 3(1) of TOLA relaxes the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021. TOLA will accordingly extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(i) has an extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) has time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval. The time limit for Section 151 of the old regime expires on 31 March 2021 because the new regime comes into effect on 1 April 2021.

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 79. Under Finance Act 2021, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the specified authorities at four stages

a. Section 148A(a) to conduct any enquiry, if b. required, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment;

Section 148A(b) to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving upon them a show cause notice as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued based on the information that suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It must be noted that this requirement has been deleted by the Finance Act 2022;33

c. Section 148A(d) to pass an order deciding whether or not it is a fit case for issuing a notice under section 148; d. and Section 148- to issue a reassessment notice.

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148-A(b)." Further, this Court dispensed with the requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A(a). Under Section 148A(b), an assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from the specified authorities under section 151 for Section 148A(b). It is well established that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142, is not bound by the procedural requirements of law High Court Bar Association v. State of UP [2024] 160 taxmann.com 32/299 Taxman 21 (SC)/[2024] 6 SCC 267.

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that: a. After 1 April 2021, the Income-tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions;

b. TOLA will continue to apply to the Income-tax Act after 1 April 2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the income-tax Act falls for completion between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021;

c. Section 3(1) of TOLA overrides Section 149 of the Income-tax Act only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of a reassessment notice under section 148,

d. TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(i) has extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval,

e. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(2) has extended time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval, 28

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17

f. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) will extend to all the ninety thousand reassessment notices issued under the old regime during the period 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021:

g. The time during which the show cause notices were deemed to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), and the period of two weeks allowed to the assesses to respond to the show cause notices; and

h. The assessing officers were required to issue the reassessment notice under section 148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Income-tax Act read with TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside;

We find that, in Para 75, it has categorically been mentioned by Hon'ble Court that after 01-04-2021. in terms of Ashish Agrawal (supra), the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified u/s.151 of the new regime. In Para 81, it has specifically been stated that the AO is required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Sec. 151 of the new regime before passing an order u/s.148A(d) or before issuing a notice u/s. 148. According to the Hon'ble Court, though the requirement to obtain prior approval as prescribed u/s 148A(a) and 148A(b) were waived-off, the requirement of approval u/s Sec.

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 148A(d) and issuance of notice u/s 148 was not waived-off and these requirements were to be fulfilled.

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 Hon'ble Madras High Court in Core Logistic Company (WP No.18168 dated 05-06-2025), the bench finally held as under; -

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17 9. We find that in the present case, we are faced with similar facts.Respectfully following these decisions, taking the same view, we would hold that in the absence of approval of specified authority as envisaged u/s 151(ii), the impugned reassessment proceedings would be bad-in-law. Delving into other grounds as well as on merits of the case has been rendered mere academic in nature. The assessee succeeds on this first and foremost legal ground alone.

5.Considering the decision as discussed above as well as facts of the case there is no dispute that in the present case approval ought to have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner, whereas the approval has been obtained from PCIT as stated in the notice U/s 148 itself. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order of the CIT(A) as the CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Apex Court and allow the appeal of the assessee. Since we have dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on legal ground hence it is needless to discuss the impugned order on merit. The appeal of the Revenue as hereby dismissed.

Kolkata, the 20th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated:. 20 . 05.2026. DC, PS

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

ITA No.2968Kol/2025 Assessment Year- 2016-17