BMR OVERSEAS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2), C.R. BUILDING DELHI 110002, DELHI

PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. NFAC”] vide order dated 25.08.2025 pertaining to A.Y.
2017-18 arising out the assessment order dated 18.05.2023

2
u/s.143 r.w.s section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act,
1961, (in short ‘the Act’).
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in the eyes of the law and on facts and thus, liable to be quashed.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principle of natural justice.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the assessment proceedings initiated by the AO as notice u/s. 148 of the Act is liable to be quashed in the absence of Document
Identification Number (DIN) on the notice u/s. 148 of the Act.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in going ahead with the assessment despite the fact that the proceedings initiated u/s. 148 were in contravention to the provision of section 151 of the Act.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in reopening the case of the assessee without possessing the juri iction in terms of instruction no. 1/2011
[F.No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], dated 31.1.2011. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 which is bad in law having been made without proper sanction as prescribed under section 151 of the Act.
7(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reopening of the assessment proceedings u/s.
147 of the Act without having valid information.
(ii) that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated on the basis of information without there being any independent application of mind.

3
(iii)
That the reassessment order passed by the AO is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been reopened on the basis of information which are vague and against the facts on record.
8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on fats and in law in confirming the actin of the AO in issuing notice of demand u/s. 156 of the Act which is in contravention to the provision of section 157A of the Act.
9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the reassessment of income at Rs. 1,49,18,380/- as against the returned income of Rs. 12,18,380/-.
10(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act treating the same to be non-genuine /bogus sale.
(ii) That the aforesaid addition has been confirmed arbitrarily rejecting the explanation and evidences brought on record by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings.
11(i) Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the taxation of the alleged cash credits of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- at the rate of 60% under section 115BBE of the Act as amended by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016. (ii) That the NFAC has failed to appreciate that the amendment brought out by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 which received assent of President on 15th December, 2016 cannot be retrospectively applied from FY 2016-17. (iii) That the NFAC ought to have therefore applied the income tax at best @30% of the income determined under section 68 of the Act and not at the rate of 60% as specified in section 115BBE of the Act as amended by Taxation Laws (Second
Amendment) Act, 2016. (iv) That the NFAC has failed to appreciate that substitution of provisions by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 was not retrospective in nature but was prospective and only application from financial year 2017-18 relevant to assessment year 2018-19. 4
3. The brief facts of the case are that assessment in this case of the assessee was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, 1961 vide order dated
18.5.2023 by making an addition of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- u/s.
68 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 28.5.2025. Against the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, assessee in appeal before the Tribunal.
4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised the legal ground that a notice u/s. 148 dated 23.4.2021 for the AY
2017-18 was issued to the assessee under the old reassessment tax regime. However, due to the introduction of new reassessment tax regime from 1.4.2021 and in consequence to the directions issued by the Hon’ble
Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC) dated 4.54.2022, information was issued us/ 148A(b) on 18.5.2022. In response to this, the assessee had file reply on 01.06.2022. Thereafter, order was passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act on 26.7.2022 and subsequently, notice u/s. 148 was issued on 26.7.2022. The order u/s. 148A(d) dated 26.7.2022 and notice u/s. 148 dated 26.7.2022 were issued by obtaining

5
approval from Pr. CIT Delhi-01 which is against the law and the proposition laid down by the Apex Court. It was submitted that the case of the assessee relates to the AY
2017-18 and the order u/s. 148A(d) was passed on 26.7.2022 and notice u/s. 148 was issued on 26.7.2022, i.e. after a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Accordingly, the sanctioning authority as per section 151(ii), should have been Principal Chie
Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief
Commissioner or Director General. The said proposition was also clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal Nol. 8629 of 2024. It was further submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the judgements of the Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court and decisions of various benches of Delhi Tribunal by relying upon the following case laws:-
- Communist Party of India (Maxist) vs. CIT(E), WP (C)
9031/2023 dated 28.4.2025, where also the issue related to AY 2016-17. - H and H and Mauritz Retail Private Limited vs. ACIT
WP (C) 4848/2023 dated 14.5.2025. - Upneet Singh Arneja vs. ITO, ITA 1100/Del/2025, dated 27.8.2025. 6
- Kiran Vs. ITO, Ward 43(1) ITA No. 1495/Del/2025
dated 24.9.2025. - Ajit Pal Singh Choudhary vs. ACIT Circle 43, Delhi ITA
No. 3395/Del/2025 dated 17.10.2025. - Wudstay Travels Private Limited vs. ACIT Circle 25(1),
New Delhi, ITA No. 2996/Del/2025 dated 28.10.2025. - DCIT Circle 10(1), New Delhi vs. M/s Interlink Foods
Private Limited and Vice versa ITA NO. 4669, 4670 &
4671, CO Nos. 126, 104 & 105/Del/2025 (In ITA NO.
4669, 4670 ad 4671/Del/29024) dated 29.10.2025,
Delhi.
6. The Ld. CIT. DR has relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the notice/ order was issued after taking the prior approval from the authority as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 SC.
7. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. It is noted that first notice u/s 148 was issued on 23-04-2021
for the A.Y.
2017-18
under the old reassessment tax regime, however due to the introduction of new reassessment tax regime from 01-04-2021 and in the compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Order in the case of Ashish Agarwal notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act

7
information was issued u/s. 148A(b) on 18.5.2022. In response to this, the assessee filed reply on 01.06.2022. It is noted that in the present case the notice u/s. 148 was issued on 26-07-2022 (copy placed in APB Page 16-17) for the A.Y. 2017-18 by obtaining the approval of the Pr.
Commissioner, Delhi-01 and consequent order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 26-07-2022 (copy placed at APB Page 13-15) was issued, which is against the law and the proposition laid down by the Apex Court, because the notice was issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, thus in terms of section 151(ii) of the Act the sanction was required to be approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal
Director General or where there is no such authority, Chief
Commissioner or Director General or Chief Commissioner, but in this case the approval has been obtained from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-01, which is not the competent authority to grant the requisite permission, hence, the same is invalid in the eyes of law and deserve to be quashed. This issue is squarely covered by the Judgement of Hon’ble Juri ictional Delhi High Court in the case of Communist Party of India (Maxist) V. CIT (Ex)
WP 9031/2023 dated 28-04-2025 and in the case of 8
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3) (2) Mumbai v.
Surya Ferrous Alloys Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1406/Mum/2024
and CO No. 77/Mum/2024 (AY 2017-18) the Co-ordinate
Bench wherein, it has been held as under:
“8. We find that in a recent decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and other Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), dated
03.10.2024, Hon'ble Court after the fall out of its own decision in the case of Ashish
Agarwal (supra) had dealt with the issue in respect of 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. According to the Hon'ble Court, the test to determine whether TOLA will apply to section 151 of the new regime is 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, 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 are time barred and liable to be set aside. Hon'ble Court had elaborately dealt with this issue in Part E of its decision in para 73 to 78 which are extracted below:

Regime
Time limits
Specified authority
Section 151(2) of the old regime
Before expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year
Joint Commissioner
Section 151(1) of the old regime
After expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year
Principal
Chief
Commissioner or Chief
Commissioner or Principal
Commissioner of Commissioner
Section 151(i) of the new regime
Three years or less than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year
Principal Commissioner or Principal
Director or Commissioner or Director
Section 151(ii) of More than three years have Principal
Chief

9
the new regime elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year
Commissioner or Principal
Director General or Chief
Commissioner of Director
General

(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 (ii) 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 or Commissioner.

(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.

Although this quote waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval u/s.148A(a) and section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for section 148A(d) and section 148. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an order u/s. 148A(d) or issuing a notice u/s.148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified u/s.151 of the new regime r.w. TOLA, where applicable….

11
must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified u/s.151 of the new regime.
This abundantly brings clarity on the aspect of obtaining approval for issue of notice u/s.148 which are fall out of the decision in Ashish Agrawal (supra). In para 77, objective of section 3(1) of TOLA is mentioned which is to relax the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021. Thus, the objective is specific for providing temporal flexibility. In para 78, the same has been explained by an example taking Assessment Year 2017-18 which also in specific terms mentions that the authority specified u/s.151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30.06.2021. Thus, while concluding in para 81 on the issue obtaining approval, Hon’ble Court has specifically stated that the Assessing Officer is required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an order u/s.148A(d) or issuing a notice u/s.148. According to the Hon’ble Court, though it had waived off the requirement obtaining prior approval u/s.148A(a) and Section 148Ab, it did not waive the requirement for section 148A(d) and Section 148. 8.2. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the ld. Sr. DR and keeping the same in juxtaposition with the above observations and findings of the Hon’ble Court, we note that the issue we are presently addressing raised before us is not on the aspect of “when” for the procedural compliance for issuance of notice u/s.148 but on the aspect of “by whom” it ought to have been issued. Ld. Sr. DR has contended that there is hierarchical escalation vis-à-vis obtaining approval for issuing notice u/s.148. In this respect, Hon’ble Court has very categorically held in para 75 that the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified u/s.151 of the new regime for the notices issued in terms of Ashish Agrawal (supra) after
01.04.2021. Reference by ld. Sr. DR to Section 149(1)(a) deals with time limit for issuing notice u/s.148. Contention of the ld. Sr. DR that there is no hierarchical escalation for obtaining prior approval for issuing notice u/s.148 is not in coherence with the guidelines mandated by the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated above.
Repeatedly, Hon’ble Court has stated including by way of illustration that TOLA extends time line from the old regime which survives making the notice validly issued subject to the approval requirements of Section 151 under the new regime.
Accordingly, the prior approval requirement is mandated under the section 151 of new regime.

Date: 13.03.2026