ITO-42(3)(3),, BANDRA EAST vs. SHANTILAL SHAMJI VEERA, MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Department against the order of NFAC, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 16/01/2026, for A.Y. 2017-18, on the following grounds of appeal:-

“1) 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in allowing the assessees appeal without discussing the issue on merits.

2) Ground2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in considering the notice issued u.s 148 of the Act as invalid and bad in law solely on the ground of non-mention of DIN in the notice, without examining the applicability of section 292B of the Act.

3) Ground3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in considering the notice issued u.s 148 of the Act as invalid solely on the ground that the said notice was issued by JAO instead of FAO, relying on the decision of Honble High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. Asst. CIT Circle 15(1)(2)(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 of 464 430 (Bombay), which has been further challenged by revenue in Supreme Court and still pending.

4) Ground4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is erred in ignoring the fact that Honble High Court, in all the writs filed in Honble High Court on the same issue has set aside the notices u.s 148 and all other proceedings OR orders until the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. in Honble Supreme Court and granted liberty to revenue to file precipe in the event the decision of Hexaware Technologies Ltd is set aside.

5) Ground5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honble ITAT is requested to entertain this appeal, though the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed in the CBDT Circular No.5 of 2024 Dt.15.03.2024 but the case falls within the exceptions laid down in clause (b) of Para 3.1 of the Boards Circular No.5 of 2024 Dt.15.03.2024.

6) Ground6. The appellant craves leave to amend OR alter OR add a new ground which may be necessary.”

2.1. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal entirely on the basis of the legal grounds raised by the assessee and consequently quashed the reassessment proceedings without rendering any finding on the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. It is also noticed that the issues relating to validity of notice for non-mention of DIN and issuance of notice by JAO instead of FAO are presently subject matter of litigation before various judicial forums and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) has admittedly been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2.2. Further, it is seen that subsequent legislative developments/amendments have materially altered the legal position which formed the very basis of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). In such circumstances, and considering the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered view that the issues involved in the present appeal require fresh adjudication by the Ld. CIT(A), including the issues on merits raised by the assessee against the additions made by the Ld.AO.

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

ARUN KHODPIA BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 12/05/2026 SC. Sr. P.S.

Copy to:

ITO-42(3)(3),, R.NO.754C, 7TH FLOOR, KAUTILYA 1 BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA

SHANTILAL SHAMJI VEERA, 17, SAPHALYA, KASTUBA CROSS ROAD, 2 KANDIVALI WEST,, MUMBAI-400067, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE