SMT PRAMILA PRAKASH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WD-23(2)(6), MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & MS. RENU JAUHRIAssessment Year: 2016-17
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 08.09.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless
Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short
‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. In the instant case, the AY involved is 2016-17 and admittedly, the case was reopened after three years from the end of relevant assessment year, while issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act and / or passing the order under Section 148 (a) (d) of the Act on 29.07.2022, in view of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarawal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 dated
04.05.2022. Smt. Pramila Prakash Jain
2
3. Admittedly the sanction for issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act, was taken from the Ld. PCIT – 19, Mumbai but not from Ld. PCCIT, as mandated under Section 151 of the Act and the AO thus violated the relevant provision Section 151 of the Act, which would entail quashing of the notices/orders issued under Section 148 of the Act, as well as assessment order passed in pursuance to such notices/orders.
Thus, the notice order dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148 (a) (d) of the Act, along with assessment order dated 19.05.2023 under Section 147 read with Section 144 (b) of the Act, passed in pursuance to the aforesaid notice/order dated 29.07.2022, is quashed.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03.12.2025. (RENU JAUHRI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Tarun Kushwaha
Sr. Private Secretary.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
////
By Order
Dy/Asstt.