MAHAVIR PUKHRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 379/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 October 2025AY 2013-14Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was by an officer lacking the requisite jurisdiction, making it invalid and non-curable. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this invalid notice were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal challenging an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The core issue revolved around the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for reassessment, given the assessee's declared income exceeded Rs. 20 lakhs.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice for reopening the assessment under Section 148 was issued by an officer with the correct pecuniary jurisdiction as per CBDT circulars, and if not, whether such a defect is curable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 250,Section 124(3),Section 120,Section 132,Section 132A,Section 153C,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, CA
For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.07.2025Pronounced: 13.10.2025

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 10.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee pressed Ground No. 2 of appeal, as the same is legal in question, wherein the juri iction for issuance of notice

2 Mahavir Pukhraj Jain., Mumbai.

u/s 148 of the Act has been challenged. In our view since this ground is purely legal in question and goes to the roots of the case therefore we have also decided to take up this ground

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →