SMT PRAMILA PRAKASH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WD-23(2)(6), 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 held that the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was taken from the Ld. PCIT instead of the Ld. PCCIT, as mandated by Section 151 of the Act. This violation would entail quashing of the notices and orders.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The case involved a reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Act, after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
What were the issues?
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order are valid if the sanction for issuing the notice was not obtained from the appropriate authority as per Section 151 of the Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 148,Section 147,Section 151,Section 144(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & MS. RENU JAUHRI
Date of Hearing : 03.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 O R D E R 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.
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.
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.
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 →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
