RAMDEO DHANRAJ BHARADIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.952/MUM/2026 (AY:2016-17) Ramdeo Dhanraj Bharadia, 6, vs. Income Tax Officer-26(1)(1), Room Ground Floor, Hira Bhavan, 12/14 No. 254, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Daryasthan Street, Masjid Bunder, Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. B.P. Lane, S.O. Babhul Wandi, Mumbai-400003. PAN/GIR No: ΛΑΑΡΒ8773B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Dhaval Shah Revenue by Shri Umashankar Prasad (CIT DR) & Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR Date of Hearing 18.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.06.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the National Faceless

Appeal Centre [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 20.11.2025 for the assessment year

(AY) 2016-17.

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order u/s. 250 of the Act dated 20.11.2025 confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act and passing the reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act is invalid and bad in the eyes of law. 3. The Ld. AO has erred in law and in facts not appreciating that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued without quoting mandatory Document Identification Number on the body of the notice and hence invalid. 1

ITA No.952/MUM/2026 Ramdeo Dhanraj Bharadia 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the Ld. AO has passed the impugned order u/s. 147 r.ws. 144B of the Act in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order in violation of principles of natural justice. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in observing that the appeal filed by the appellant is defective which is invalid and bad in the eyes of law 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not admitting additional evidences filed by the appellant. 8 The Ld. AO erred in law and in facts in not adjudicating the issue of alleged bogus purchases before him and instead adjudicating issue of cash deposits which was never subject matter of addition by the Ld. AO in the assessment order 9 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in making addition u/s 69A of the Act of Rs. 6,76,76,150/-being the amount of purchases from (i) M/s Monarch Trading Co and (ii) M/s Monalisha Trading Co which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s. 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which is invalid and bad in the eyes of law.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, the assessee filed return of income for AY 21016-

17 declaring income of Rs.13,98,120/-. As per the bank statement, the assessee

had made transactions of Rs.6,76,76,150/- with M/s Monarch Trading, Prop.

Pravin Dayallal Shah and M/s Monalisa Trading Co., Prop. Jagdish Naik. These

concerns were not engaged in genuine business and provided accommodation

entries. Hence, notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.07.2022. The assessee filed return

within the time allowed. Thereafter, AO issued notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) and

made addition of Rs.6,76,76,150/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE.

ITA No.952/MUM/2026 Ramdeo Dhanraj Bharadia 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A).

The assessee had raised grounds both on validity of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act

as well as merits of the case. In the written submission, the assessee had referred

to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal, 138

taxmann.com 64 (SC), Semens Financial Services Ltd. vs. DCIT 457 ITR 674 and

submitted that the approval was incorrectly obtained from the Pr. CIT instead of

the Pr. CCIT as per provisions of section 151 of the Act. In this case the “specified

authority” was the Pr. CCIT and not the Pr. CIT since, 3 years had elapsed from the

end of the relevant AY 2016-17. The CIT(A) has, however, dismissed the ground

challenging reopening of the assessment. He has also dismissed the ground on

merits of the addition. In the result, the appeal was dismissed.

Tribunal. The ld. AR has filed a paper book and submitted that the order u/s

148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2016-17 was issued on 31.07.2016

were after 3 years from the end of the relevant AY 2016-17. Further, the amount

of income escaping assessment was only Rs.6,76,76,150/-, which was more than

Rs.50,00,000/- as required under the relevant provisions of the Act. The approval

for issue of notice u/s 148 was given by the Pr. CIT instead of the Pr. CCIT. Hence,

the notice was bad in law and invalid. Accordingly, the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s.

144B dated 07.01.2025 is also invalid. The ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has

not decided the issue though specific ground and submission was made in this

regard. The Ld. AR relied on various decisions, namely (i) UOI v. Rajeev Bansal [167 3

ITA No.952/MUM/2026 Ramdeo Dhanraj Bharadia taxmann.com 70], (ii) Ramesh Bachulal Mehta v. ITO [177 taxmann.com 606], (iii)

Alag Property Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [WP No. 3938 of 2022, dated

08.09.2025], (iv) Amaan Naeem Akhtar Ansari v. ITO [178 taxmann.com 689] and

(v) Jindath Babulal Jain v. ITO [CO No. 136/Mum/2026, dated 16.04.2026].

also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR. The issue that arises

for consideration in the present appeal is that in case where order u/s 148A(d) of

the Act (new regime) has been passed and notice u/s 148 of the Act (new regime)

has been issued for the AY 2016-2017 after 30.06.2021, whether the Pr. CIT u/s

151(i) of the Act or the Pr. CCIT u/s 151(ii) of the Act is the “specified authority”

for granting necessary approval. In our view, the above issue is no longer res

integra and stands settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra). In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court had, while dealing with the issue of approval from “specified

authority” in terms of section 151 of the Act, made it clear that the specified

authority u/s 151(i) of the Act (new regime) could grant sanction till 30.06.2021

and not thereafter. In the present case, order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of

the Act (new regime) were issued on 31.07.2022, i.e. after 30.06.2021, with

approval of the PCIT-19 Mumbai. As per the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the authority specified u/s 151(ii) was the

ITA No.952/MUM/2026 Ramdeo Dhanraj Bharadia

Pr. CCIT and not Pr. CIT. Therefore, we hold that in absence of the approval from

the “specified authority” u/s 151(ii) of the Act, the AO lacked jurisdiction to pass

order u/s 148A(d) and issue notice u/s 148 of the Act (new regime) for AY 2016-

dated 31.07.2022, are quashed and set aside as being bad in law. Resultantly, the

order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 29.05.2023 is also quashed. The ground of

the assessee is, accordingly, allowed.

Order is pronounced on 15.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

*Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 15.06.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, MUMBAI