DOSHI ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41 (2) (1), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged an order passed by the NFAC. The assessee had been ex-parte before the Ld. CIT(A) and sought to lead additional grounds of appeal, which were legal in nature.
What were the issues?
Whether additional grounds of appeal, being legal in nature, should be admitted and whether the matter should be restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151,Section 149(1),Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT5,834 citing229 ITR 383 · 1998 · SC
- Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT1,372 citing187 ITR 688 · 1991 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.12.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 27.06.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2016-17.
At the very outset, we noticed that assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A). However assessee has moved an application for leading additional grounds before us and the contents of the same are reproduced herein below:
1. Additional Ground No. 01 2 Doshi Enterprises On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. erred in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 20.04.2023 vide DIN ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2023- 24/1052240010(1) for impugned A.Y. 2016-17, disregarding the fact that the said notice was issued beyond 6 years from end of relevant assessment year i.e. 31.03.2023 and therefore, it is barred by limitation in view of first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act.
Additional Ground No. 02 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. erred in passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act without valid prior approval of specified authority u/s 151 of the Act, disregarding the fact that the alleged sanction granted u/s 151 of the Act by PCCIT, Mumbai did not bear any signature (whether digital or manual) of the specified authority and therefore, the same was invalid..
After having heard the counsels for both the parties, we found that the same are legal in nature and it goes to the roots of the case, therefore while following the principles laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Jute Corporation India Ltd., Vs. CIT, 187 ITR 688 and The NTPC Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 and also considering the facts of the present case, we allow the application for raising the additional ground and consequently the said ground are admitted to be heard on merits.
Since assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A) and we have admitted the additional grounds therefore in our view, the interest of justice would be met only if the matter is the restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding these legal ground and other grounds afresh after consulting and verifying 3 Doshi Enterprises the assessment records, needless to mention after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, keeping in view the above factual position, the present appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating, the same afresh on merits by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to call for any other document from the parties or to call for remand report.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed, as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
Since we have restored the additional grounds raised by the assessee to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for decision on merits therefore other grounds raised by the assessee are also restored back. As the outcome of the decision of the additional grounds would have bearing on the other grounds as well.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
