SUNITA UMESH KARANDE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41(3)(4), MUMBAI

The assessee has also raised following additional grounds of appeal: “1. The notice u/s 148 is bad in law and without jurisdiction as the jurisdictional requirements of section 147 to 151A have not been fulfilled. 2. The notice under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. 3. The sanction u/s 151 has been obtained from PCIT instead of Pr.CCIT and as a result, the reassessment proceeding is bad in law. 4. The ld. AO ought to have initiated proceedings under section 153C of the Act.”

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and the record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that he has filed an additional ground of appeal vide application dated 28.07.2026. The additional ground of appeal is purely legal in nature and no new facts are required to be brought on record to adjudicate such additional ground of appeal. The facts are emanating from the orders of the lower authorities on record. In support of the additional ground of appeal, the learned AR of the assessee submits that the case of the assessee for assessment year (A.Y.) 2018-19 was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 dated 07.04.2022. The notice under section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The AO was required to obtain the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT). The AO obtained approval of the Pr CIT, which is evident from the notice itself as well as from the order under section 148A(d). Copy of notice under section 148 and 148A(1)(d) is also placed on record. To support his submission, the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of the Jurisdictional High 2 Court in Skypack Travel (P) Ltd. vs ITO [2026] 185 taxmann.com 936 (Bombay). 4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities. 5. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. We find that the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal. The additional ground of appeal is purely legal in nature and does not require bring new fact on record. The facts for adjudication of such additional ground of appeal are emanating from the material available on record. Moreover, the additional ground of appeal is purely legal in nature. Thus, the additional ground of appeal is admitted for adjudication. Now adverting to the adjudication of the additional ground of appeal. 6. We find that the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2018-19 was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 dated 07.04.2022. Admittedly, notice under section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the assessee was required to obtain approval of the specified authority under section 151(ii). In the present appeal, the AO obtained the sanction/approval of the PCIT under section 151(i). To be more specific, the AO was required to obtain the sanction/approval from the PCCIT or CCIT. The approval obtained from the PCIT, which is not valid. Hence, the notice under section 148 is held as invalid and, therefore, the consequent action initiated thereto has become void ab initio. A similar view was taken by 3 the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Skypak Travels (P) Ltd. vs ITO (supra). In view of the aforesaid factual position and legal view, the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 11/09/2026. /- /- Sd/- /- SSd/- Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated:11/09/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file.