Omission of section 92BA(i) in the statute - Reopening by PCIT whether permitted

Facts:

Certain related party payments were questioned by the PCIT under section 263by  reopening the original order passed by AO under section 143(3). On appeal assessee's plea was that the reopening was incorrect as the said section thru which the related party payments allegedly hit by section 40A(2) was thru section 92BA(i) and the said section 92BA(i) itself was omitted in the statute vide Finance Act, 2017. On appeal questioning the reopening -

Held in favour of the assessee that the reopening was not permitted consequential to obliteration of section 92BA(i) in the law.

Applied:

Pr. CIT v. Texport Overseas P. Ltd. (2020) 114 taxmann.com 568 (Kar.) : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2756 (Karn-HC)

Shahi Expoprts Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [ITA. No. 483/Del/2021]

Yorkn Tech. Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA. No. 635/Del/2021 dated 18-08-2021;

SMR Automotive Systems India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [ITA. No. 6597/Del/2018, dt. 25-5-2022];

Bhartia-SMSIL (JV) v. ITO [ITA. No. 117/Gau/2019, dt. 17-6-2020] : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2593 (Gau-Trib);

Raipur Steel Casting India Pvt. Ltd. [ITA. No. 895/Kol/2019, dt. 10-06-2020] : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2659 (Kol-Trib);

Srinath li Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. [ITA. No. 1035/Kol/2019].

Case: Durga Loha Bhandar (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT 2023 TaxPub(DT) 2552 (Del-Trib)