SEJAL MANOJKUMAR ROLIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 23(3)(6), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4046/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 August 2026AY 2017-183 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 approval obtained from the PCIT was not in accordance with Section 151(ii) of the Act, as it was issued after the period contemplated under Section 151(i). Consequently, the notice and the assessment order were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment for AY 2017-18 was reopened by issuing a notice under Section 148. The approval for this notice was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT).

What were the issues?

Whether the approval obtained for issuing a notice under Section 148 was valid when it was obtained after the period specified in Section 151(i) and if the sanction by an incompetent authority vitiates the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 151(i),Section 151(ii),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE PRABHASH SHANKAR

Pronounced: 31.08.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 06.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, “Ld. Commissioner”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), for the A.Y. 2017-18.

ITA No.4046/MUM/2026 Sejal Manojkumar Rolia 2. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the assessment for A.Y. 2017-18 was reopened by issuance of notice dated 31.07.2022 u/s 148 of the Act after obtaining prior approval from the Ld. PCIT-19, Mumbai. Pursuant thereto, the AO passed the assessment order dated 11.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

3.

The Ld. DR supported the orders passed by the authorities below.

4.

We have heard the parties, perused the material available on record and given thoughtful consideration to the issue involved. Admittedly, the notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.07.2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 after obtaining approval from the Ld. PCIT-19, Mumbai. By that stage, the approval contemplated under section 151(i) was no longer sufficient and approval was required from the specified authority prescribed u/s 151(ii) of the Act.

5.

The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Alag Property Construction (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 179 taxmann.com 578 (Bom.)/[2026] 487 ITR 440 (Bom.), while dealing with A.Y. 2017-18, has held that where the notice u/s 148 is issued after expiry of the period contemplated under section 151(i), approval must be obtained from the authority specified under section 151(ii), and approval granted by the Principal Commissioner would not satisfy the statutory requirement.

6.

Further, in Skypak Travels Private Limited v. ITO [2026] 185 taxmann.com 963 (Bom.), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court reiterated that sanction by an incompetent authority is not a mere procedural irregularity but goes to the root of jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal [(2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC)] has also emphasized that sanction by

ITA No.4046/MUM/2026 Sejal Manojkumar Rolia the appropriate specified authority is a statutory pre-condition for valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148.

7.

Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid binding legal position, we hold that the approval obtained from the Ld. PCIT-19, Mumbai was not in accordance with section 151(ii) of the Act. Consequently, the notice dated 31.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act and all consequential proceedings, including the assessment order dated 11.05.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, are quashed.

8.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary

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 →