KARAN RAMESH MANDHANI,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4240/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 September 2026AY 2019-204 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was without jurisdiction due to the incorrect authority granting approval and because it was barred by limitation under Section 149(1)(b). Consequently, the notice and all subsequent reassessment proceedings were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order related to reassessment proceedings for AY 2019-20. The notice for reassessment was issued beyond three years, and the approval for this notice was obtained from an authority not specified under Section 151(ii) of the Act. Additionally, the alleged escaped income was below the threshold of Rs. 50,00,000/- required for issuing notice beyond three years.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment notice was validly issued beyond three years, considering the authority granting approval and the amount of escaped income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 149(1)(b),Section 151(ii),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Pronounced: 15.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 4240/M/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Karan Ramesh Mandhani, Assessing Officer, E102 Oberoi Splendor CHS, Mumbai, Maharashtra - Vs. Jogeshwari East, Mumbai, 400001 Maharashtra - 400060 PAN – ASPPM2809N (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी /Respondent) Present for: निर्धाऩिती द्वधिध/Assessee Shri Karan R. Madhani (in represented by: person) िधजस्‍व द्वधिध/Revenue represented Smt. Sujatha Iyyangar, SR DR by:

सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 07.09.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement: 15.09.2026

O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.01.2026, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short, “Ld. Commissioner”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) for the A.Y. 2019-20.

2 ITA No. 4240/M/2026 Karan Ramesh Mandhani 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 11 days in filing the appeal. The Assessee has explained, supported by a duly sworn affidavit, that due to misunderstanding regarding the further appellate remedy, he became aware of the appropriate remedy only upon receipt of notice dated 06.04.2026 u/s 270A and thereafter filed the appeal without further delay. Considering the short delay and reasonable explanation, the delay of 11 days is condoned.

3.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record and given thoughtful consideration to the rival claims of the parties. The Assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the notice u/s 148 dated 20.04.2023 was issued beyond three years from the end of A.Y. 2019-20, whereas approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot under section 151(i), instead of the specified authority contemplated u/s 151(ii) of the Act.

4.

It is undisputed that the notice was issued beyond three years. The Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. DCIT, W.P. No.2768 of 2022, decided on 06.02.2024, Alag Property Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 179 taxmann.com 578 (Bom.) and Skypak Travels (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2026] 185 taxmann.com 963 (Bom.) has held that in such cases approval must be obtained from the authority specified u/s 151(ii), and approval by the Principal Commissioner does not satisfy the statutory requirement.

5.

Accordingly, the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner in the present case, is without jurisdiction and consequently the notice u/s 148 and the reassessment proceedings cannot be sustained.

3 ITA No. 4240/M/2026 Karan Ramesh Mandhani 6. There is another independent jurisdictional defect. The alleged escaped income is only Rs.12,00,000/-, whereas section 149(1)(b) permits issuance of notice beyond three years, only where the income escaping assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs.50,00,000/- or more, subject to the statutory conditions.

7.

Since the alleged escaped income is admittedly below Rs.50,00,000/-, thus the notice dated 20.04.2023 is also barred by limitation u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act, on this aspect as well.

8.

Thus, the notice dated 20.04.2023 issued u/s 148 is without jurisdiction, firstly, for want of approval from the competent authority u/s 151(ii) and, secondly, being barred by limitation u/s 149(1)(b). Consequently, the said notice and all proceedings arising therefrom, including the assessment order dated 25.02.2025, are hereby quashed.

9.

Since the reassessment itself stands quashed on the aforesaid legal grounds, the other grounds, including those on merits, are rendered academic and require no adjudication.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed on the aforesaid legal grounds.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANKIT SWARNKAR) Private Secretary

4 ITA No. 4240/M/2026 Karan Ramesh Mandhani

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →