BIKEN GIRISHKUMAR JARIWALA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083746772(1) dated 16-Dec-2025 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) Ground 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming reassessment proceeding initiated under section 148 of income tax Act, 1961 which is bad in law and required to be quashed. 2) Ground 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that reassessment proceeding initiated under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of information not belonging to appellant is bad in law 3) Ground 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that permission obtained under section 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 from Ld. PCIT is not in accordance with law. Therefore, resultant proceedings u/s 148 are also bad in law and require to be quashed 4) Ground 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that reassessment proceeding initiated under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is in violation of provision of section 149(1)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as there is no Income represented in form of asset exceed 50 lakh escaped assessment 5) Ground 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000 under section 37 of Income Tax Act,1961 on account of genuine donation made to sardar Vallabhbhai Patel party without considering the fact that the appellant had not business. Therefore, provision of section 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable on appellant 6) Ground 6 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that assessment order passed without providing the material, information, statements and opportunity of cross examination to the appellant which is in gross violation of principal of Audi Alteram Partem rendering the order to be bad in law liable to be quashed 7) Ground 7 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not directing to giving credit of TDS 8) Ground 8 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming charging of interest under section 234A, 234B & 234C of Income tax Act, 1961 9) Ground 9 On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming invocation of penalty provision under section 270A of Income tax Act,1961 10) Ground 10 Appellant craves leave to add further grounds OR to amend OR alter the existing grounds of appeal on OR before the date of hearing

2.1 In this regard, I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the order passed by the revenue authorities. From the record, I notice that the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were issued on 31/03/2023, which was beyond the period of three years. In this regard, I place reliance on the decision in the case of Mukesh Jhunjhunwala vs. DCIT, ITA No. 2515/Mum/2026, vide order dated 08.06.2026, wherein it was held as under:

Facts:

“4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2019- 20 on 11.04.2023. The reason for reopening was bogus donation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Sardar Vallabhai Patel Party. After hearing the assessee, the AO disallowed donation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and added the same to the total income. On appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.”

Finding:

“7. We have heard both parties and perused the materials on record. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR. The issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether, in a case where an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act (new regime) has been passed and notice u/s 148 of the Act (new regime) has been issued for AY 2019-20 after 30.06.2021, the Pr. CIT u/s 151(i) of the Act or the Pr. CCIT u/s 151(ii) of the Act is the ‘specified authority’ for granting the necessary approval. In our view, the above issue is no longer res integra and stands settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC). In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of approval from the specified authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act, made it clear that the specified authority u/s 151(i) of the Act (new regime) could grant sanction till 30.06.2021 and not thereafter. In the present case, the order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act (new regime) were issued on 11.04.2023, i.e., after 30.06.2021, with the approval of the PCIT and not the Pr. CCIT. This has not been controverted by the Ld. Sr. DR. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the authority specified u/s 151(ii) was the Pr. CCIT and not the Pr. CIT. Therefore, we hold that, in the absence of approval from the specified authority u/s 151(ii) of the Act, the AO lacked jurisdiction to pass the order u/s 148A(d) and issue notice u/s 148 of the Act (new regime) for AY 2019-20. Therefore, the impugned order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act, both dated 11.04.2023, are quashed and set aside as being bad in law. Resultantly, the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 07.01.2025 is also quashed.

7.1 The issue can be decided from another aspect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the assessment can be reopened beyond 3 years but within 10 years from the end of the relevant AY if the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs. 50,00,000/- or more. In the present case, the notice u/s 148 was issued beyond 3 years from the end of the relevant AY 2019-20, on 11.04.2023, though the amount was Rs. 2,00,000/-, which was less than the threshold limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Hence, the notice u/s 148 could not have been issued on 11.04.2023. Hence, the notice u/s 148 dated 11.04.2023 is liable to be set aside and quashed on this ground as well.”

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.08.2026.

Sd/- SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 19.08.2026 RY-SrPS Copy to: BIKEN GIRISHKUMAR JARIWALA, 70/13 VALLABH NIWAS, 1ST FLOOR, 1 SION(W), MUMBAI-400022, MAHARASHTRA INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(1)(1), MUMBAI, ROOM NO. 607, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, C-41 2 TO C-43, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE