IMRAN NOOR MOHAMMED SULIA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3355/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 July 2026AY 2019-202 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was void-ab-initio due to the lack of valid sanction from the competent authority. Consequently, the assessment order passed pursuant to this notice was also unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened after three years from the end of the assessment year. The notice for reopening was issued with the sanction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, but not with the sanction of the competent authority as prescribed by law at the relevant time.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued under Section 148 was valid without the proper sanction from the competent authority. Whether the assessment order passed pursuant to an invalid notice can be sustained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J (SMC

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Mr. Hiten Raut, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, SR. D.R
Hearing: 22.07.2026Pronounced: 22.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “J (SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3355/M/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Imran Noor Mohammed Assistant Commissioner, Sulia, Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai, 5, Chunawala Estate, Kondivita Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, New Road, J.B. Nagar, Andheri East, Marine Line, Churchgate, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400059. Mumbai, Maharashtra - PAN – AAOPS8070N 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Mr. Hiten Raut, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Jayshree Thakur, SR. D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 03.12.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short, “Ld. Commissioner”), u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), for the A.Y. 2019-20.

2.

Admittedly, in the instant case, the income alleged to have escaped assessment is below the prescribed threshold of Rs.50 lakhs. Further, the case of the Assessee has been reopened after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year by issuing notice dated 18.04.2023 u/s 148 of the Act with the sanction of the Ld. PCIT, Mumbai-3, and not with the sanction

2 ITA No. 3355/M/2026 Imran Noor Mohammed Sulia

of the competent authority as prescribed u/s 151(ii) of the Act, as applicable at the relevant point of time.

3.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, we are of the considered view that the notice dated 18.04.2023 issued u/s 148 of the Act, would be void-ab-initio sans valid sanction from the competent authority. Consequently, the assessment order dated 20.02.2025 passed pursuant thereto also cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

4.

Accordingly, the notice dated 18.04.2023 issued u/s 148 of the Act and the assessment order dated 20.02.2025 passed pursuant thereto, are quashed.

5.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANKIT SWARNKAR) 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 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →