SHABBIR TAHERI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT TAX WARD-4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ायपीठ, मुंबई |
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“I” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT
&
SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 1574/Mum/2025
Assessment Year: 2018-19
Shabbir Taheri
Room No. 39, 4th Floor
Yusuf Building
Opposite Ashoka Shopping Centre
L T Marg
Mumbai - 400002
[PAN: ABQPT1226N]
Vs
Income tax Officer, Int. Tax
Ward – 4(1)(1), Mumbai
अपीलाथ/ (Appellant)
यथ/ (Respondent)
Assessee by :
Shri Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, A/Rs
Revenue by :
Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01/10/2025
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 15/10/2025
आदेश/O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated
09/01/2025 framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act pertaining to AY
2018-19. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the notice u/s 148 of the Act and reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is bad and invalid in the eyes of law and on merits. The assessee is aggrieved by the addition made by the AO.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that vide notice dated
06/04/2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act. The AO proposed to assess/re- assess/re-compute the income for AY 2018-19. The notice was issued after obtaining prior approval of the ld. Pr. CIT, Mumbai- 17, accorded on 06/04/2022. The challenge of the assessee is that the approval should
I.T.A. No. 1574/Mum/2025
2
have been taken from PCCIT as per the provisions of Section 151 of the Act.
The ld. D/R strongly contended that the notice has been approved as per the appropriate authority relevant at that point of time. The provisions of Section 151 of the Act reads as under:-
“151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be:-
(i)
Principal Commissioner or principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.
(ii)
Principal Chief Commissioner of Principal Director General or Chief
Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year;]
[Provided that the period of three years for the purposes of clause (i) shall be computed after taking into account the period of limitation as excluded by the third or fourth or fifth provisos or extended by the sixth proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 149]”
This issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of Vodafone India Limited in W.P. No. 2678 of 2022. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court reads as under:- “3. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 7% April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai 5. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-19 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 has been inserted only with effect from 1 April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand.
In this circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.,' the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 under section 148Ad) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside.”
Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of Mystique Media Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in WP (L) No. 12562 of 2024. The relevant part of the order, reads as under:- “3. Petitioner is impugning a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, both dated 5" April 2022 and the notice dated 17* March 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. One of the grounds raised is that the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is I.T.A. No. 1574/Mum/2025 3
invalid inasmuch as the sanction has been admittedly issued by the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT") and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT").
3. Counsels for Petitioner state this petition is covered by the order dated 6* February
2024 passed by this Court in the case of Vodafone Idea Limited v. Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2) (1), Mumbai & Ors.'. Counsel for Respondents agrees.
4. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 5th April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-2019 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 5"h April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151(ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 of the Act has been inserted only with effect from 1 April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand.
5. In the circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private
Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors, the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 5* April 2022
under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside.”
The Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court again had the occasion to consider a similar grievance in the case of Purnima Jitendra Navsariwala vs. ITO in W.P. No. 7 of 2024. The relevant findings read as under:- “3. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 7 April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and the order also dated 7" April 2022 passed under Section 148Ad) of the Act. One of the grounds raised is that the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is invalid inasmuch as the sanction has been admittedly issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCI) and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT").
The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-2019. Since the impugned order as well as the notice are both issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years, therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151(iii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 of the Act has been inserted only with effect from 1 April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand.
In these circumstances, Mr. Shah submits that as held by this Court. in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors, the sanction is invalid. Mr. Rattesar agrees. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Sections 148A(d) of the Act and impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 7" April 2022, are hereby quashed and set aside.”
I.T.A. No. 1574/Mum/2025
4
The Co-ordinate Benches in the cases of Davos International Fund vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1190/Mum/2024; AY 2018-19 and Asha P. Kedia [2025] 174 taxmann.com 99 (Mumbai), has considered the issues raised by the D/R and answered in favour of the assesse and against the revenue wherein in both the cases, the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Limited (supra), has been considered in favour of the assessee. 8. Considering the facts of the case in totality in the light of the decision discussed hereinabove, we set aside the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act for want of proper sanctions from the appropriate authority thereby quashing the resultant assessment order. Since we have quashed the impugned notice, we do not find it necessary to delve into the merits of the case. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 15th October, 2025 at Mumbai. (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 15/10/2025 *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs *SC SrPs
आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. थ / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु")अपील (/ The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 6. गाड& फाई/ Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER