TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1414
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as "the Ld. CIT(A)") under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") arising out of Assessment Order dated 29.05.2023 of the Learned Assessing Officer/Assessment Unit (hereinafter referred as "the Ld. AO") under Sections 147 read with section 144B of the Act for AY 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 28.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 60,96,993/-. A survey action was conducted on 27.04.2018 on M/s. Sarvroopey Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. at Sector 23 Dwarka and M/s. Shashi Sales & Marketing Pvt. L Astral Food Pvt Ltd & Rabik Exports Ltd. at G-10 Padma Tower, Rajendra Place, Delhi. Informatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was sought from the assessee vide notice dated 20.02.2023 issued under section 142(1) of the Act, wherein, assessee in response to same submitted copy of Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, along with copy of notes/ schedules, copy of sale invoices, ledger confirmations, copy of bank statements, details regarding corresponding purchases made against alleged sales along with copy of purchase invoices. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 29.05.2023 made addition of Rs. 4,11,56,500/-. 3. Against order dated 29.05.2023 of Ld. AO, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed vide order dated 10.03.2025. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant/revenue preferred present appeal and asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Rs. 43,09,085/-, without proper appreciation of the facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in computing the EBITDA without rejecting the books of account under section 145(3) of the Act, thereby rendering the computation arbitrary and unjustified. 3. That the respondent reserves the right to add, delete, amend, modify the grounds of cross objections". 7. Learned Authorized Representative for assessee submitted that there is delay of 15 days in filing Cross-objections due time taken in engagement of a counsel. The explanation does not smack of mala fide as respondent-assessee has not gained anything by not filing cross-objection within the period of limitation. Therefore, delay of 15 days....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roval has been obtained from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is not the competent authority to grant the permission. This issue is squarely covered by the Judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Communist Party of India (Maxist) V. CIT(E) WP 9031/2023 dated 28.04.2024 and the case of Sampartk Management Consultancy LLP v. DCIT, Curcle-5(2)(1) Noida ITA No. 6025 & 6026/Del/2024 dated June 25, 2025. Reliance was placed on para 5 to 7 of order dated 27.08.2025 in ITA No. 1100/Del/2025 titled as "Upneet Singh Arneja Vs. ITO". 10. On examination of record in light of above said rival contentions, it is crystal clear that notice dated 27.04.2021 under Section 148 of the Act was issued for assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quarely covered by the Judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Communist Party of India (Maxist) V. CIT(Ex) WP 9031/2023 dated 28-04-2025 and the case of Sampark Management Consultancy LLP v. DCIT, Circle 5(2) (1) Noida ITA NO. 6025 & 6026 /Del/2024 dated June 25, 2025. In the case of Sampark Management Consultancy LLP v. DCIT, Circle -5(2) (1) Noida the Co-ordinate bench held as under: "3. We find that section 148 of the Act was substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 wet. 01.04.2021. Notice 14 of the Act as per the old provisions of section 148 of the Act applicable till 31.03.2021 should have been issued only upto 31.03.2021. The issue stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....264 SUPREME COURT) and various decisions. Thus, the approval is not sustainable under law. The grounds as raised deserves to be sustained. Consequently, the appeals of the assessee are allowed." 6. The Ld. Sr. DR has relied the order 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. In the present case the notice was issued on 28-07-2022 for the A.Y. 2016-17 from the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner, without, the approval of the authority specified u/s 151 of the Act. The notice was issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant as....