Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant corporation challenged the reopening of assessment and subsequent additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The appellant contended that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed period without proper approval from the competent authority, rendering it invalid.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid because the prior approval was not obtained from the Competent Authority as per the Supreme Court's decision, and consequently, all assessment proceedings were also invalid.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid due to lack of proper approval from the competent authority for reopening beyond the prescribed period.
Sections Cited
148, 250, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)
Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in conforming the AO action in completing the Assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax ' Act, 1961 without any material evidences on records thereby rendering the assessment is bad-in-law.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in conforming an addition of Rs.6,81,944/- being @ 8.36% of Rs.81,57,2307- of alleged purchase from M/s Ratnakala Exports Pvt Ltd.
3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the sworn affidavits of the Directors of Ratnakala Exports Pvt. Ltd. of retraction.
4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in ignoring the principles of natural justice for affording an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine the alleged evidences collated and relied upon in the reassessment proceedings. 5. The Appellant craves right to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal on or before the hearing.
2 Amrit Corporation But, before going to the merits of appeal, the Ld. AR of appellant has pleaded the Bench to go through the additional grounds of appeal filed by them which is reproduced below :- “Reference above we would like to state that we are in appeal before the honorable ITAT against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, where we have raised various grounds which inter-alia include ground Challenging the reopening of assessment being bad in law. Which reads as under : "under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the AO's Action in completing the assessment u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act, 1 96 1 without any material evidence on record thereby rendering the assessment as Bad in Law." Without prejudice to the aforesaid ground we would like to modify and or raise as additional ground as Under, "Under the facts and circumstances of the case arid in law the reopening u/s 148 being bad in law, the order passed in consequence there to, also being bad in law the same should be annulled" Since this ground being legal in nature the same should be admitted and be deliberated as such. Reliance is placed on the judgement of apex court in case of National Thermal Power Corporation reported in 229 ITR 383.”
2. From the above, the Ld. AR of the appellant has pointed that for A.Y.2018-19, the Ld. AO has issued a notice under section 148 of the Act on 7.4.2022 and in that notice, it was mentioned that prior approval of PCIT(Central) was taken before issuing this notice. The Ld. AR of the appellant has argued that it is a settled law now in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 147 taxman.com 70 that if the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is beyond three years period, the approval of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is to be taken and not Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Since, the approval is not taken from Competent Authority, it was pleaded that the reopening notice under section 148 of the Act is invalid and all consequent proceedings will also become invalid.
3 Amrit Corporation
The Ld. DR argued that the 148 notice is valid.
Both parties are heard. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court is binding on all authorities including ITAT. In several cases including the decision of Ketan Kumar dated 29.8.2025, the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai also took similar decision. In view of the same, the notice under section 148 of the Act is held as invalid and consequently all the assessment proceedings initiated thereof are also held invalid.
The appellant’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/09/2025.