HEMANT GUPTA,PUNE vs. ITO WD-13(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 826/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 August 2026AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the reassessment notice was invalid because the approval for issuing it beyond four years was obtained from the Joint Commissioner instead of the prescribed higher authority as per Section 151.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 37 days. The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings are invalid due to improper approval obtained for issuing the notice under Section 148 beyond the four-year period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151,Section 144,Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal
For Respondent: Smt. R.M. Brindha
Hearing: 30.07.2026Pronounced: 06.08.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 is directed against the order dated 09.10.2025 of Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment order dated 13.12.2016 passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act.

2.

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 37 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay. On due consideration of the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the 2 Hemant Gupta

stipulated time limit. We find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

The sole grievance in the instant appeal revolves around the addition for short term capital gain at Rs.6,11,894/-.

4.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee raised legal issue stating that approval u/s.151 of the Act has not been taken from the authority prescribed and that in place of approval to be taken from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, reopening has been carried out by taking the approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and therefore such notice u/s.148 of the Act deserves to be quashed as invalid.

5.

On the other hand, ld. DR merely supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessment order in question is A.Y. 2009-10 and notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued on 09.03.2016 after obtaining necessary approval from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-13, Pune. Copy of the notice is placed at page 41 of the paper book. Admittedly, the notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued

3 Hemant Gupta

beyond four years. As per the provisions of section 151 as applicable for the year under consideration, notice u/s.148 of the Act after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year cannot be issued, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for issue of such notice. Ld. DR failed to controvert this fact that in the instant case, notice has been issued u/s.148 of the Act beyond four years by taking approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and not by the authority as prescribed in proviso to section 151 of the Act. We find that in the instant case proper sanction has not been taken u/s.151(1) of the Act and therefore the notice u/s.148 of the Act is illegal and bad in law which thus renders the reassessment proceedings as invalid. Legal issue raised by the assessee is allowed.

7.

Since we have allowed the appeal on the legal issue dealing with the grounds on merit would be merely academic in nature and therefore the same are dismissed as Infructuous.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on this 06th day of August, 2026. (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 06th August, 2026. Satish

4 Hemant Gupta

Satish Kumar Madishetty आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →