JITENDRA KAMRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 24(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1816/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 August 2026AY 2018-196 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 under Section 148 was invalid because it was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year without satisfying the conditions of Section 149(1)(b) and without obtaining approval from the prescribed authority under Section 151(ii). Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened based on an investigation note, leading to an addition of 25% of alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The assessee challenged the reopening notice under Section 148, arguing it was invalid due to procedural non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued under Section 148 for reopening the assessment beyond three years was valid, considering the requirements of Sections 149(1)(b) and 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 149(1)(b),Section 151(ii),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Badoni, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.06.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.1816/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jitendra Kamra ITO, Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai 1301, Lumiere, J.P. Road, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Versova, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 PAN: AACPK0898E Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

: Shri B.N. Rao & Monu Verma Assessee by : Shri Vibhor Badoni, Sr. DR Revenue by Date of Hearing : 24.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 19.08.2026 O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee, against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 18.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, arises from the order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 31.01.2024, passed by Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department [in short, “the Ld.AO”]. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. The Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 2,59,939 i.e., 25% on alleged bogus purchase without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing.

ITA No. 1816/Mum/2026 Jitendra Kamra 2. The Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not discussing the rateability of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act, which is not called for in the facts and circumstance of the Case. 3. The Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in quoting Grounds of Appeal which were not taken the Appellant before him.” 2. The case of assessee was reopened on the basis of investigation note in the case of M/s Pragati Glass Private Limited.Ld. AO made an addition while completing the assessment for 25% of the bogus purchases for ₹10,39,756/-, which comes at ₹25,99,939/-.Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by AO, by dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution by the assessee.

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that,in the present case,the notice under Section 148 dated 07/04/2022 issuedfor AY 2018-19, was invalid, being issued after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the assessment framed on the basis of proceedings initiated under Section 148,by issuing an invalid notice cannot sustain in the eyes of law. To establish such contentions, a copy of Notice under Section 148 dated 07/04/2022 was furnished before us and submitted that such notice was passed after taking prior approval from the PCIT Mumbai-20 on 06/04/2022, whereas the approval ought to have been taken from PCCIT or CCIT Mumbai. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Manish Jagdish Joshi Vs. CIT,decision dated 26thAugust 2024, reported (2024)208 ITD432(Mumbai).It is also contended that the notice was issued beyond 3 years from the end of assessment year for an escarpment of income less than Rs. 50 Lac, thus such notice found to 2

ITA No. 1816/Mum/2026 Jitendra Kamra be issued in violation of provisions of section 149(1)(b), which allows issuance of notice after 3 years up to 10 years only if the escaped assessment amount to or likely to amount to Rs. 50 lakh or more. It is submitted that since in present case on both the counts the AO was failed to adhere to the provisions of Act, therefore the notice u/s 148 vitiates and consequential the assessment framed cannot survive.

4.

Ld. DR, per contra supported the orders of revenue authorities.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and examined the case laws relied upon by the assessee.

6.

The assessment year under consideration is AY 2018-19 and the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 7 April 2022, undoubtedly, after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the issuance of such notice shallbe governed by the pre-conditions prescribed under section 149(1)(b) for limitation as well as section 151(ii) of the Act for sanction by the specified authority.

7.

As per section 149(1)(b) of the Act, where more than three years but not more than ten years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, a notice under section 148 can be issued only where the Assessing Officer has in his possession the prescribed books of account, documents or evidence revealing that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the specified form, has escaped

ITA No. 1816/Mum/2026 Jitendra Kamra assessment or is likely to amount to ₹50 lakh or more. Thus, satisfaction of the statutory threshold prescribed under section 149(1)(b) is a condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction beyond the period of three years.

8.

Further, since more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the sanction contemplated under section 151(ii), as applicable to the notice issued on 7th April 2022, was required to be obtained from the specified authority prescribed therein, namely, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, as the case may be, and not from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax.

9.

In the present case, the notice under section 148 having been issued beyond three years from the end of AY 2018-19, the statutory requirements applicable to a reopening beyond three years were required to be satisfied. However, the conditions prescribed under section 149(1)(b) qua limitation and the requirement relating to the specified authority under section 151(ii) have not been complied with. The initiation of reassessment proceedings, therefore, suffers from non-compliance with both the mandatory statutory conditions governing assumption of jurisdiction under section 148.

Accordingly, the notice issued under section 148 on 7th April 2022, issue 10. without complying the mandatory requirements prescribed under sections 149(1)(b) and 151(ii) of the Act, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 4

ITA No. 1816/Mum/2026 Jitendra Kamra 11. Our aforesaid view is supported by the principles laid down in following judgments: 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Aggarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) - 2. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Dy. CIT and others, (2023) 154 taxmann.com 159 (Bom) 12. We, thus, in view of the aforesaid observations and deliberations, are of the considered view that the impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 7th April 2022, in the present case, was invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements prescribed under sections 149(1)(b) and 151(ii) of the Act and, so is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the assessment order passed under section 147 of the Act dated 31st January 2024, being founded upon an invalid assumption of jurisdiction, cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed.

13.

In the result, the Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee are allowed on the aforesaid legal premise, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions/disallowances in question.

14.

In result, appeal of assessee stands allowed, in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19-08-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (PAWAN SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated : 19-08-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS 5

ITA No. 1816/Mum/2026 Jitendra Kamra

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →