JAYASHREE KETAN GADA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19 1 5 MUMBAI , MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to raise the additional ground, finding it to be a purely legal issue. The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under Section 148 and the consequential reassessment proceedings due to the violation of Section 151.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the impugned order of the NFAC/CIT(A). The assessee raised an additional ground regarding the legality of the notice issued under Section 148, citing a violation of Section 151 of the Act concerning the approval authority.
What were the issues?
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 for reopening beyond three years is valid when the approval under Section 151 was obtained from an inappropriate authority?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
Date of Hearing 29.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2025 ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2022- 23.
2. At the outset, Ld. AR has raised the additional ground, wherein he has challenged the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on the ground that the approval for issuance of notice sought by the department is in violation of the provisions of Sec. 151 of the Act.
After having heard the counsels for both the parties on this application for raising additional ground, I find that this ground raised by the assessee is purely legal in question and requires no further evidence therefore while relying upon the decision in the case of NTPC V/s. CIT(1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) . I allow the application for raising additional ground and consequently the said ground is admitted to be heard on merits.
Since the application for seeking additional ground raised by the assessee has been allowed, therefore we would like to adjudicate this issue firstly as the same goes to the roots of the case. The additional grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced herein below:
Additional Ground. The Appellant/assessee craves for leave to raise and state additional ground(s), which concerns the issue of jurisdiction u/s. 147 and goes to the root of the matter. It is submitted that the issue(s) of jurisdiction can be raised for the first time before this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is submitted that: 1) Date of notice u/s. 148 - The assessment has been framed u/s. 147, vide notice u/s. 148 dated 29th July 2022, for A.Y. 2017-18. Hence it is submitted that the reopening is beyond three years, from the end of the assessment year. 2) Approval u/s. 151- It is submitted that since the for the purpose of section 151, the appropriate authority is the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income tax (PCCIT). Whereas the Ld. AO has obtained approval of the PCIT, as mentioned in para 3 of the notice u/s. 148 dated 22nd July 2022 (copy attached herewith). And, hence the reopening is bad-in-law & illegal.
Jayashree Ketan Gada,. Mumbai.
From the records we noticed that the date of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act is on 29.07.2022 for A.Y 2017- 18 and hence the reopening is beyond three years from the end of the assessment year. As per the provisions of Sec. 151 of the Act, the appropriate authority for seeking approval is Pr. CIT whereas the AO has obtained approval of Pr. CCIT as mentioned in para 3 of the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 22.07.2022. In this regard I have perused the provisions of Sec. 151 of the Act and also the decision of the Coordinate Benches of ITAT mentioned herein below:
Satish Harnamadas Sethi in ITA No. 3091/Mum/2024.
Ramlal Suthar in ITA No. 3224/Mum/2024.
3. Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani ITA No. 3551/Mum/2024.
Devalbai Karsan Parmar 4.
Since the facts of the present case are very clear wherein the notice u/s 148 of the Act for reopening has been issued after three years from the end of the assessment year and admittedly the approval for issuance of said notice has been obtained in violation of Sec. 151 of the Act and therefore while relied upon the decision of Satish Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Harnamadas Sethi in and also keeping in view the facts of the present case I quashed the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act, resultantly the
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
More judgments on Section 147
- 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
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
