SANDHYA SUBHASH BAFNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 41 (3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4981/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 August 2026AY 2016-173 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 Principal CIT was invalid as it was not from the designated authority under Section 151(ii). Consequently, the notice for reopening and the subsequent assessment order were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessment was reopened beyond three years, and the approval for reopening was obtained from the Principal CIT, which the assessee argued was not the competent authority as prescribed under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The lower appellate authority upheld the reopening.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings are vitiated due to invalid approval obtained from an incompetent authority for reopening the assessment beyond three years.

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI RAKESH KUMAR LODHA

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: G BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH KUMAR LODHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 4981/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Sandhya Subhash Bafna ITO, Ward 41(3)(4) 27, 6th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C41-43, Babuline Complex, Avenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan, Vs. Dadiseth Road, Malad (W), G Block BKC, Gilban Area, BKC, Mumbai. Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

PAN of Assessee: AGCPB5964G

Appellant represented by: Shri Piyush Chhajed, Ld. AR Respondent represented Shri Rajgopal Parthasarathi, Ld. Sr. DR by: सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 07-Aug-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement: 07-Aug-2026 ORDER

PER: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai, [in short “Ld. Commissioner] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”] for the A.Y 2016-17.

2 ITA No.4981/Mum/2026 Sandhya Subhash Bafna 2. In the instant case the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year by issuing notice dated 31.07.2022 u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of approval / sanction taken from the Ld. Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai but not from the Competent Authority and / or Designated Authority as prescribed under the provisions of Sec. 151(ii) of the Act and thus the notice dated 31.07.2022 u/s 148 of the Act and all consequential proceedings including the Assessment Order dated 16.05.2023 are liable to be quashed 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 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.

3.

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 31.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act and all consequential proceedings, including the assessment order

3 ITA No.4981/Mum/2026 Sandhya Subhash Bafna dated 16.05.2023 passed under section 147 rws 144B of the Act, are quashed.

4.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- RAKESH KUMAR LODHA NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KRK, Sr. PS

Copy to: 1 Appellant 2 Respondent 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., 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 →