DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RAB ENTERPRISES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

"Whether, on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in quashing the notice issued u/s 148 and setting aside subsequent assessment order u/s 147 by wrongly interpreting the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI us Rajem Bansal and thus erred in holding that the assessing officer ought to have obtained sunction from Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and not from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (herein after referred to as PCIT)?"

"Whether, on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in quashing the notice issued u/s 148 holding that the approval obtained from PCIT is not in accordance with laws, without appreciating that the order u/s 148A(d) dated 30.07.2022 was passed with prior approval of the PCIT as per section 151(1) of the Act after following the due procedures laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in consequence to its direction in the case of UOI vs Ashish Agarwal?"

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in quashing the notice issued u/s 148 without considering that the initial notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.06.2021 after obtaining prior approval of JCIT u/s 151(2) of the Act and the same is covered under the extended time limit provided by TOLA?"

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing interest of Rs. 14,83,66,476/- claimed U/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and while doing so, failed to appreciate that (a) such loans were not used for the purpose of business of the assessee and (b) was on the contrary invested in subsidiaries and other companies of the group, in the form of share capital?"

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 37/1) of the Act of Rs. 2

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite repeated calls. On going through the case records, we noticed that this is the 10th opportunity granted to the assessee. Since nobody has appeared and no application seeking adjournment has been filed, in the absence of the assessee or his representative.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR present in the Court is ready with his arguments; therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeal ex parte.

Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in quashing the notice issued under Section 148 and setting aside the subsequent assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order.

We have heard the learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with this issue in detail in his order, and the operative findings are contained in paragraphs 5.2 to 5.3.8 and the same is reproduced herein below:

After having gone through the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and hearing the submissions of the Ld. DR, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated these grounds by passing a detailed order and thereby relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal.

The Ld. DR could not point out as to how the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Rajeev Bansal is distinguishable on the facts of the present case.

Even otherwise, no new facts, circumstances, or documentary evidence have been brought on record by the Revenue to controvert or rebut the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with or deviate from the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed, and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld.

Since we have already upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in quashing the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and setting aside the subsequent assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Act, the

Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.