Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which allowed their appeal against the assessment order. The core of the appeal revolved around the validity of the reassessment notice and subsequent proceedings initiated under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice and order were bad in law due to non-compliance with Section 151(ii) of the Act. The approval for issuing the notice was taken from the Principal Commissioner instead of the higher authority required (Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner), thus vitiating the jurisdiction.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings and notice were validly issued by the Assessing Officer, considering the required approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, especially in light of recent amendments and judicial pronouncements.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 144B, 148A, 151, 151A, 153C, 69A, 115BBE, 234A, 234B, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
order : 23.12.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
1. 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 21/08/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 22/04/2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2016- 2017.
2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
1. The returned income of the appellant is Rs. 2,68,670/- for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 A.Y. 2016-17. The returned income for the A.Y. 2015-16 is Rs. 2,85,020/- and for the A.Y. 2014-15 the returned income is Rs. 2,09,190/- The notice issued by the DY CIT Circle (1)(2)(1) Mumbai is without jurisdiction and hence reassessment made under section 147 rws 144 read with section 144B be cancelled.
2. The reassessment notice under section 148A(b) issued on 27/5/2022 by jurisdictional DY CIT Circle 1(2) Mumbai AO 1(2)(1) Mumbai and notice under section 148A (d) and notice under section 148 are issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer circle 1(2)(1) Mumbai (i.e. DY CIT Circle 1(2) (1) Mr. H.S.Kelkar Saheb) As per section 151A of IT Act, 1961 as well as per CBDT instruction dated 29.3.2022 such reassessment notices are required to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer under the scheme framed by the CBDT and not by Jurisdictional Assessing officer. 2.1 The re-assessment proceeding initiated and consequential reassessment proceeding initiated and consequential reassessment order passed u/s. 147 rws 1448 & 144 is invalid and be cancelled. 2.2 The above view is confirmed by the Jurisdictional High Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v/s. ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 430 Bombay HC. The reassessment initiated u/s. 148A(b) 148A(d) & 148 and consequentially re-assessment done u/s. 147 rws 144 be declared null and void.
3. Without prejudice to other contentions/grounds the notice issued u/s. 148 is invalid. The notice ought to have been issued under section 153C of the IT Act 1961.
4. Without prejudice to other grounds of appeal no addition can be done under section 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961 and question of applicability of special rate under section 115BBE is not applicable. The Appellant has correctly shown income from business and whatever sources income is taxed. It should be taxed under head income from Business and same is already declared by the appellant and there is no need to taxed u/s. 69. A of IT Act, 1961.
2. Assessment Year 2016-2017 5.1 The reassessment notice is time barred and consequently the assessment made is also invalid and be declared null and void. 5.2 The sanction under Section 151 is not by proper authorities. The Assessment is invalid.
6. The Assessing Officer has made additions under section 69A of the Income Tax Act without furnishing any incriminating material arising from the statements of key officials of M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Society, and without conducting any independent inquiry or providing an opportunity for cross-examination of those persons. Such action is in clear violation of the principles of equity and natural justice. Accordingly, the assessment deserves to be quashed.
7. Interest charged under Section 234A and 234B be deleted.”
When the appeal was taken up for hearing the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee, at the outset, challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings contending that the approval/sanction obtained under Section 151 of the Act was not valid. In this regard, primary contention advanced on behalf of the Assessee is that in the present case for Assessment Year 2016-2017, the notice under Section 148 and order under Section 148A(d) have been issued on 28/07/2022, which is beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. The case of the Assessee falls within the ambit of provisions of Section 151(ii) of the Act whereby the specified authority for grant of approval has been specified as Principal Chief Commissioner of Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner of Director General. Contrary to the aforesaid requirement, the approval in the present case has been obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai [vide Reference No.Pr.CIT-2/Approval/u/s148A(d)/2022-23, dated 19/07/2022]. Accordingly, since proper sanction by the specified authority has not been obtained for issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act, such notice is invalid and bad in law. In this regard, reliance was placed by the Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee on the 3 Assessment Year 2016-2017 judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ramesh Bachulal Mehta Vs. Income Tax Officer in Writ Petition No.271 of 2023, dated August 11, 2025 [2025] 177 taxmann.com 606 (Bombay) and in the case of Prakash Pandurang Patil Vs. Income Tax Officer in Writ Petition No.10749 of 2024, dated August 12, 2024 [2025] 177 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay).
Per contra Learned Departmental Representative supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer and vehemently contended that approval/sanction under Section 151 of the Act is valid.
We have heard both the sides and have perused the material on record in relation to this issue. We have also taken into consideration the judicial precedents cited during the course of hearing.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case the issue that arises for consideration is whether in terms of Section 151 of the Act the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax; or the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was the Specified Authority for seeking approval for passing order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act (new regime) for the Assessment Year 2016-2017.
In this regard we deem it appropriate to refer to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)[03/10/2024]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had, while dealing with the issue of approval from specified authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act, made the following observations:
“74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old regime: (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 4 Assessment Year 2016-2017 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.
After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of Ashish Agarwal (supra), after 1 April 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under section 151 of the new regime. The effect of Section 151 of the new regime is thus: (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.
Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, non-compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limits prescribed under section 151 affects their jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 148.
Parliament enacted TOLA to ensure that the interests of the Revenue are not defeated because the assessing officer could not comply with the pre-conditions due to the difficulties that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 3(1) of TOLA relaxes the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021. TOLA will accordingly extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three 5 Assessment Year 2016-2017 years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(i) has an extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(2) has time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval. The time limit for Section 151 of the old regime expires on 31 March 2021 because the new regime comes into effect on 1 April 2021.
For example, the three year time limit for assessment year 2017-2018 falls for completion on 31 March 2021. It falls during the time period of 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, contemplated under section 3(1) of TOLA. Resultantly, the authority specified under section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30 June 2021.
Under Finance Act 2021, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the specified authorities at four stages: a. Section 148A(a) - to conduct any enquiry, if required, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; b. Section 148A(b) - to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving upon them a show cause notice as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued based on the information that suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It must be noted that this requirement has been deleted by the Finance Act 2022; c. Section 148A(d) - to pass an order deciding whether or not it is a fit case for issuing a notice under section 148; and d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice; 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts "shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148-A of the Income-tax Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148-A(b)." Further, this Court dispensed with the requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A(a). Under Section 148A(b), an assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new 6 Assessment Year 2016-2017 regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from the specified authorities under section 151 for Section 148A(b). It is well established that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142, is not bound by the procedural requirements of law High Court Bar Association v. State of U P [2024] 160 taxmann.com 32/299 Taxman 21 (SC)/[2024] 6 SCC 267.
This Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) directed the assessing officers to "pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assesses concerned." Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime "after following the procedure as required under section 148-A." Although this Court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under section 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 under section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable.” (Emphasis Supplied) 8. On bare reading of the above extract of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had clarified as under:
(a) Under new regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 Assessing Officer was required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the ‘Specified Authority’ at four stages – at first stage under Section 148A(a), at second stage under Section 148A(b), at third stage under Section 148A(d), and at fourth stage under Section 148. In the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under section 148A(a) and Section 148A(b) of the Act only. 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 under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. 7 Assessment Year 2016-2017 (b) Under new regime if income escaping assessment is more than Rupees 50 lakhs a reassessment notice could be issued after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant previous year only after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General.
(c) The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20th March 2020 and 31st March 2021, then the ‘Specified Authority’ under Section 151(i) has an extended time till 30th June 2021 to grant approval.
(d) Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, non-compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limits prescribed under section 151 affects their jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 148
(e) Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice.
9. In the present case the period of 3 years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-2017 fell for completion on 31/03/2020. The expiry date fell with the period of 20th March 2020 to 31st March 2021 contemplated under Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [for short ‘TOLA’]. Resultantly, the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime could have granted sanction till 30th June 2021. It is admitted position that in the present case order under Section 8 Assessment Year 2016-2017 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 of the Act were issued after 30th June 2021. However, the necessary approval/sanction has been taken from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. As per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) the necessary approval/sanction should have the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the Act (i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner).
We note that in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ramesh Bachulal Mehta Vs. Income Tax Officer in Writ Petition No.271 of 2023, dated August 11, 2025 [2025] 177 taxmann.com 606 (Bombay), after taking into consideration the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the jurisdictional Bombay High Court has quashed the reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 (initiated after the expiry of 3 years from the end of relevant previous year). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that that as per Section 151(ii) of the Act sanction/approval was mandatorily required from higher authority i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax /Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, and therefore, the approval/sanction granted by the Principal Commission of Income Tax was held to be invalid. The relevant extract for Jurisdictional High Court is set out herein below:
“8. On bare reading of the above extract of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clarified as under. 8.1 Under the substituted provisions of re-assessment as introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, the Assessing Officer is required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the 'Specified Authority' at four stages: (i) at first stage under Section 148A(a); (ii) at second stage under Section 148A(b); (iii) at third stage under Section 148A(d); and (iv) at fourth stage under Section 148. In the case of Ashish Agarwal (supro) the Hon'ble Supreme Court waived 9 Assessment Year 2016-2017 off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under section 148A(d) and Section 148A(b) of the Act only. 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 under Section 148A(d) or for issuing a notice under Section 148. 8.2 Under new regime, if income escaping assessment is more than Rupees 50 lakhs, a reassessment notice could be issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year only after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General.
8.3 Section 151(ii) of the substituted provisions prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, non-compliance with the provisions of section 151 vitiates the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue a notice under section 148. 8.4 Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice.
In the present case the period of three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17 fell for completion on 31st March 2020. Since the expiry date fell during the time period of 20th March 2020 and 31st March 2021 contemplated under Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (for short "TOLA"), the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime could have granted sanction till 30th June 2021. On perusal of the order, dated 13.07.2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, we find that the aforesaid order was passed after taking approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No.2). Since the aforesaid order was passed after the expiry of three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17, as per the substituted provisions of re-assessment, the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the Act (i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner) was required to grant approval. Accordingly, we conclude that in the present case the approval has been obtained from the authority specified under 10 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Section 151(i) of the new regime instead of the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the new regime.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has drawn an illustration in paragraph 78 of it's order in the context of Assessment Year 2017-18, wherein it is categorically held that the authority specified under section 151(i) can accord sanction only upto 30.06.2021. This illustration makes it absolutely clear that when the 11. Non-compliance by Respondent No.1 with the provisions contained in Section 148A(d) read with Section 151(ii) vitiates the jurisdiction of the Respondent No. 1 to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. 12. We are clearly of the view that the present matter stands covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UPI v. Rajeev Bansal (supra). We accordingly hold that the order dated 13.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice issued under section 148 dated 15.07.2022 are bad in law for being violative of the provisions of Section 151(ii) of the Act. Hence they are required to be quashed and set aside. 13. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 13.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d), the Notice issued under Section 148 and all other proceedings/orders emanating there from and allow the writ Petition in terms of Prayer Clause (a) of the petition.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. No order as to costs.
This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.”
We note that in the case of ACIT CC 7(3) Vs. Lotus Logistics and Developers Private Limited [ITA No.627/Mum/2025 & C.O. No.49/Mum/2025], vide order dated 09/05/2025, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal had quashed the reassessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 since the notice, dated 29/07/2022, was 11 Assessment Year 2016-2017 issued under Section 148 of the Act after taking approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as mandated by Section 151 of the Act.
Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we hold that notice, dated 28/07/2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act after 30th June 2021 [extended time granted under TOAL] suffers from jurisdictional effect as in the present case approval for issuing the said notice has been taken from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as mandated by Section 151(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the notice, dated 28/07/2022, issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 is quashed. Accordingly, the re-assessment proceedings, and the Assessment Order, dated 22/04/2023, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 & 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 is also quashed. Accordingly, Ground No.1, 5.1 and 5.2 raised by the Assessee are allowed while all the other Grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.