ITO 23 3 6 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SANDESH PREMRAJ MEHTA, MUMBAI

Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the Ld. Commissioner quashed the assessment order dated 26.02.2024, firstly, on the ground that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer contrary to the faceless reassessment scheme, by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bom.)/[2024] 464 ITR 430 (Bom.); and secondly, on the ground that the approval u/s 151 was obtained from the PCIT-19, Mumbai, instead of the specified authority contemplated u/s 151(ii) of the Act.

The Ld. DR assailed the impugned order and relied upon the subsequent amendment concerning the faceless reassessment regime.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. Even assuming that the Revenue’s challenge to the finding based upon Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) requires reconsideration in view of the subsequent statutory amendment, the independent finding of the Ld. Commissioner regarding invalid sanction u/s 151(ii) still survives.

Admittedly, for A.Y. 2018-19, the requisite approval was obtained from the PCIT-19, Mumbai, whereas the competent specified authority under section 151(ii), applicable at the relevant stage, was the higher authority prescribed therein. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held in analogous cases that approval granted by the PCIT beyond the period contemplated under section 151(i) does not satisfy section 151(ii) and constitutes a jurisdictional defect.

Thus, the independent finding of the Ld. Commissioner quashing the reassessment for want of valid sanction u/s 151(ii) calls for no interference. Consequently, the Revenue’s challenge on the JAO-FAO issue becomes academic for disposal of the present appeal.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.