SMT. SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 22 11 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1043/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the approval for reopening the assessment was invalid as it was not obtained from the competent authority as prescribed under Section 151(ii) of the Act.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 30 days, citing non-receipt of the order on their regular email. The reopening of the assessment was done under Section 147 after three years, but the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was obtained from an incompetent authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings are vitiated due to invalid approval obtained from an incompetent authority for reopening the assessment after three years. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 151,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 RAKESH KUMAR LODHA

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Rajgopal K
Pronounced: 14.08.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been preferred by the ASSESSEE against the order dated 09.10.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC)/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.

2.

At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 30 days in filing the instant appeal. Considering the reason stated by the Assessee for the condonation of delay to the effect that the Assessee did not get impugned

ITA No.1043/MUM/2026 Smt. Sarah Faisal Hawa

order on its regular email, which is duly supported with duly sworn affidavit, as plausible and delay is otherwise meagre and no intentional default is appearing and/or attributable, thus we are inclined to condone the delay in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, specifically to the effect: “That the Assessee would not have gained in any manner, whatsoever by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Further, when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Further, if the Court is satisfied then sufficient explanation given for condoning the delay can be expected as evidence.”

Hence the delay of 30 days in filing the instant appeal, is condoned. 3. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe that the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s.147 of the Act after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, while issuing a notice dated 29.07.2022 u/s. 148 of the Act by taking sanction from the ld. PCIT -2, Mumbai but not from the competent/sanctioning authority, as prescribed in relevant provision of Section 151(ii) of the Act and thus, the notice u/s. 148 of the act, and all consequential proceedings including the assessment order dated 22.05.2023, would be vitiated, specifically, in view of dictum laid by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Skypak Travels Private Limited vs. ITO, [2026] 185 taxmann.com 963 (Bom.) (Writ Petition no.5456 OF 2024 decided on dated 24.04.2026}, to the effect that where the notice under section 148 is issued beyond three years, approval must be obtained from the higher authority specified under section 151(ii) of the Act. Approval granted by the PCIT, being an incompetent authority, is not a mere procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect, which vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings. Further grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a pre-condition for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under Section 148. Section

ITA No.1043/MUM/2026 Smt. Sarah Faisal Hawa

151 is not an empty formality but it is a statutory safeguard and check against arbitrary reopening. Non-compliance with that requirement strikes at jurisdiction itself, as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal [(2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC)]. Further, the proviso to section 151, inserted with effect from 01.04.2023, cannot be applied retrospectively to validate such approval.

4.

Thus, considering the bare provision of law as applicable to the case in hand and respectfully following the aforesaid binding judgments, we hold that the approval obtained from the Ld. PCIT, Mumbai-19, is invalid. Consequently, the notice dated 29.07.2022 u/s. 148 of the Act and all consequential proceedings, including the assessment order dated 22.05.2023, are quashed.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- RAKESH KUMAR LODHA 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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →