ARVINDBHAI KHATRI SONS DESIGNS PVT LTD, MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-4(1)(1), MUMBAI

2025 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless

The Ld. NFAC erred in making the observation that the appellant has not explained the difference, whereas the appellant has explained in detail with supporting documents before the Assessing Officer (AO) as well as before the NFAC and discharged the burden beyond a reasonable doubt; hence, the additions confirmed by the NFAC may be directed to be deleted.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 3,71,03,745/- under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act on appellant's inter-bank transfers without appreciating that the accounts of the appellant are audited and the mismatch is duly reconciled and explained.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the order of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 5,05,01,134/-under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act on appellant's card sales, whereas the same has been offered to income under section 28 of the Act.

Without prejudice to above, that on the facts and circumstances of the case no defects were found in the books of account maintained by the appellant and VAT authorities have accepted the sales shown as per books of account, hence the addition of Rs. 45,07,000/-, Rs. 5,48,08,230/-,RS. 3,71,03,745/-.RS. 5,05,01,134/-confirmed by the NFAC may be directed to be deleted.

Without prejudice to the above the Ld. NFAC erred in relying on various case laws in the order without giving an opportunity to rebut how the case laws are not applicable to the facts of the appellant; hence the additions confirmed by the NFAC may be directed to be deleted.

Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without passing a speaking order and not dealing with the various submissions and evidence produced before the Ld. AO and appellate authority, hence the additions confirmed by the NFAC without following the due process of law may be directed to be deleted.

In this case, the assessee filed return of income disclosing total income of Rs 75,15,530/-. Subsequently, the AO got information that substantial cash deposits of Rs 4,09,89,250/-in its bank account was made by the assessee. The AO considered the same to have escaped

We take up the legal ground no.1 first in which the assessee has challenged the reopening of the assessment as also the consequential reassessment order on the ground that in this case, approval for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was accorded by the Pr.CIT and not Pr.CCIT. The ld.AR has referred to the relevant approval as per pages 70-75 of the Paper book filed before us. It is submitted at in this case, original notice u/s 148 for reopening notice was issued on 29.06.2021 and the subsequent notice was issued on 29.07.2022 which was beyond three years from the end of the assessment year. However, the sanction for issuing the notice was taken from PCIT as per and not from the correct authority i.e. PCCIT. It is submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46(SC) and followed by the jurisdiction High Court decision in the case of Alagh Property Construction P.Ltd 179 taxmann.com 578(Bom) and jurisdictional Tribunal order in the case of Ramlal G. Suthar in ITA No.3224/Mum/2024 dated 07.01.2025,the impugned notice was invalid as also the consequential

On the other hand, Id. DR has strongly relied on the orders of lower authorities and also contended that this ground was taken by the assessee before the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the materials placed before us. We are of the considered view that once a notice u/s. 148 is sought to be issued after 31.03.2021, the provisions regarding reopening, including those relating to the 'specified authority’ for approval come into force. Since first notice in this case was issued on 29.06.2021 and the order u/s. 148A(d) was passed on 29.07.2022, the limited issue for consideration is that since more than 3 years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e A.Y. 2017-18, whether the specified authority to grant sanction for issue of notice in this case is Pr. CIT or PCCIT/CCIT. In this regard, the relevant