SHANTILAL NAROTTAMDAS PANCHAL,MALAD EAST vs. ITO-41(3)(4), MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

ITA 3570/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: him. II. Reopening is bad in law: 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) has erred reopening the assessment by issuing the reopening Notice u/s.148 of the act on 21.07.2022 and pass the order u/s.148A(d) of the act on 21.07.2022 after obtaining sanction from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, whereas the specified authority for approval u/s.151 of the act in this case should have been the Principal Chief CIT, as three years had elapsed from the en1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, as mandated by Section 151(ii) for reassessments initiated after three years. This vitiated the jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The assessee's reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 were challenged on the grounds that the approval for reopening was obtained from an incorrect authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings are invalid due to the approval for reopening being obtained from an incorrect authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, given that the notice was issued beyond three years.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K (SMC

[ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 12/02/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 25/05/2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. Delay of 37 days in filing the present appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the applicati

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →