RAMESH TUKARAM SHIROSHE,KALYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), KALYAN, KALYAN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3734/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ramesh Tukaram Shiroshe Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Kalyan Room No163, Kalyan Murbad Road, Kalyan, Kalyan, City H.O, THANE, Vs. Kalyan-Dombivali Maharashtra, 421301 (PAN: BXAPS3514F) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Om Kandalkar, Advocate Revenue : Smt. Sujatha Iyyanger, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2026 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1087255650(1), dated 12.03.2026, passed against the assessment order by the Assessment Unit of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, u/s. 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 01.03.2024, for Assessment Year 2018-19.

2 ITA No. 3734/Mum/2026 Ramesh Tukaram Shiroshe Assessment Year 2018-19 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 08/04/2022 for A.Y 2018-19 is barred by limitation, having been issued beyond the time limit prescribed under section 149(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the said notice is without jurisdiction, invalid, and liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 08/04/2022 has been issued beyond the period of three years without appreciating the facts that the Income alleged to have escaped assessment does not exceed the amount of fifty lakh Rupees or more specified under section 149(1) (b) of the Act. Hence, the said 148 notice is bad in law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice dated 08/04/2022 u/s 148 of the Act, has been issued without obtaining approval from the appropriate specified authority as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act. Thus, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is invalid and bad-in-law. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 08/04/2022 as well as the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and void ab initio as the alleged approval u/s. 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not granted in accordance with law. The purported approval has been shown only through a computer-generated order sheet, which is unsigned, does not bear any digital or physical signature of the specified authority, and does not contain any Document Identification Number (DIN). No separate written approval recording independent satisfaction was granted. In absence of a valid and duly authenticated sanction under section 151, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings were based on approvals purportedly granted u/s. 151(i) in respect of proceedings under section 148A(b) dated 26/03/2022, order under section 148A(d) (undated), and notice under section 148 dated 08/04/2022, all bearing the same reference number 100000029359639, thereby demonstrating complete non application of mind and rendering the sanction mechanical and invalid in law 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 08/04/2022 for A.Y 2018-19 has been issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer and hence, the same is in violation of the e- Assessment of the income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 provided u/s 151A of the Act. Thus, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is unlawful and bad in law. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the show-cause notice u/s. 148A(b) for calling details and effectively conducting enquiry and by thereby mixing the provisions of section 148A(a) and 148A(b), which makes the notice issued u/s. 148A(b) as well as order u/s. 148A(d), consequently, notices u/s. 148 as bad in law.

3 ITA No. 3734/Mum/2026 Ramesh Tukaram Shiroshe Assessment Year 2018-19 8. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC further erred in setting aside the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication without deciding the legal and jurisdictional issues raised by the appellant. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing. PRAYER The appellant respectfully prays that the notice issued under section 148 dated 08/04/2022 be quashed as being without jurisdiction and bad in law, and consequently the assessment framed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 be annulled. Without prejudice, the addition of Rs. 24,35,561/- made under section 69A by the assessing Officer and set aside by the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted. The appellant further prays for such other relief(s) may please be granted as may deem fit a just under the facts a circumstance of the case.”

4 ITA No. 3734/Mum/2026 Ramesh Tukaram Shiroshe Assessment Year 2018-19 factual position as noted above in respect of approval being obtained from Pr.CIT-1, Thane for the purpose of issuing notice u/s. 148 which is not in accordance with the requirements of section 151. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the judicial precedents relied upon for which relevant judicial orders are placed on record. We find that the issue in the present case is no longer res integra and is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Pradeep Himatlal Shah vs. ITO [2025] 170 taxmann.com 471 (Bom). The relevant portion from this decision is extracted below: “Where order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 were issued beyond a period of three years, sanction to pass order and issuance of notice was required to be accorded by Principal Chief Commissioner as provided under section 151(ii); sanction granted by Principal Commissioner was not proper and thus, reopening notice was invalid”

5 ITA No. 3734/Mum/2026 Ramesh Tukaram Shiroshe Assessment Year 2018-19 provisions of re-assessment, the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the Act (i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner) was required to grant approval. Accordingly, we conclude that in the present case, the approval has been obtained from the authority specified under Section 151(1) of the new regime instead of the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the new regime.”

6.1. The finding given by the Hon'ble Court contained in para-13, 14 and 15 are as under: “13. The foundational facts are not in dispute. The present case pertains to Assessment Year 2018-19. The impugned order under Section 148A(d) is dated 06 April 2022 and the impugned notice under Section 148 is dated 07 April 2022. Both these actions are, therefore, beyond a period of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. 14. Once this position is accepted, the consequence in law is clear. As Section 151 stood at the relevant time, where more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority was the authority contemplated by Section 151(ii), and not the authority mentioned in Section 151(i). Three years are to be counted from the end of the relevant assessment vear. In the present case, the impugned or and notice themselves indicate that the approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. This fact is also admitted in the Reply Affidavit He was not the competent authority in law for a case falling beyond the three-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year. 15. The issue is directly covered by the decision of this Court in Vodafone Idea Limited(supra). In that case also, for Assessment Year 2018-19, the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) had been issued beyond three

6 ITA No. 3734/Mum/2026 Ramesh Tukaram Shiroshe Assessment Year 2018-19 years and the sanction had been accorded by the Principal Commissioner. Incidentally, the notice in the said case was also dated 07 April 2022. This Court held that the sanctioning authority had to be the Principal Chief Commissioner as provided under Section 151(ii) and that the proviso to Section 151, inserted only with effect from 01 April 2023, would not apply. Consequently, the notice and order were quashed. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are as under: "3. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai 5. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-19 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The provisio to Section 151 has been inserted only with effect from 1st April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand. 4. In this circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 under section 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside.'

6.2. The conclusion drawn by the Hon'ble Court as in para-25 is as under: “Where notice under section 148 was issued beyond three years from end of relevant assessment year and approval was granted by Principal Commissioner instead of specified authority under section 151(ii), such notice and consequent order were invalid”

7 ITA No. 3734/Mum/2026 Ramesh Tukaram Shiroshe Assessment Year 2018-19 sanction by the specified authority had not been obtained for issue of notice u/s.148 under the applicable provisions of law, said notice is invalid and bad in law.

7.1. Keeping in juxtaposition the undisputed and the uncontroverted facts and the judicial precedent as stated above, we hold that sanction by specified authority has not been obtained by the ld. Assessing Officer in accordance with the provisions contained in section 151 of the Act under the new regime, since notice u/s.148 has been issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. Accordingly, the said notice issued is invalid and thus quashed. Resultantly, the impugned re-opening proceedings so initiated and the impugned re- assessment order passed thereafter are also quashed. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed.

7.2. Since the impugned reassessment order has been quashed in terms of above finding, all the other grounds are rendered academic in nature and therefore, needs no separate adjudication.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 07 July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Amit Shukla) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member (Accountant Member) Dated: 07 July, 2026 MP, Sr.P.S.

8 ITA No. 3734/Mum/2026 Ramesh Tukaram Shiroshe Assessment Year 2018-19

Copy to : 1 The assessee 2 The Respondent 3 DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4 Guard File 5 CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Sr. Details Date Initial Designation No. 1. Draft dictated on Sr.PS/PS computer 2. Draft Placed before Sr.PS/PS author 3. Draft proposed & placed JM/AM before the Second Member 4. Draft JM/AM discussed/approved by Second Member 5. Approved Draft comes to Sr.PS/PS the Sr.PS/PS 6. Order pronouncement on 7.7.2026 Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench 7.7.2026 Sr.PS/PS Clerk 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 9. Date on which file goes to the AR 10. Date of Dispatch of order