HAIDAR MUBARAK BEPARI,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGLI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law because the approval for reopening was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, as required under Section 151(1)(ii) for assessments initiated after three years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 and the assessment order were quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in purchasing buffaloes, filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 95,30,871/- due to lack of proper explanation and documentary evidence for the difference between declared income and turnover. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment proceedings are valid when the approval for reopening was obtained from the incorrect authority as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1186/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2017-18 Heena Irfan Bepari ITO, Sangli 661, Raviwar Peth, Madhavnagar, Vs. Sangli – 416416 PAN: BNEPB9635A (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.2988/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2017-18 Haidar Mubarak Bepari ITO, Sangli Chandni Chowk, Raviwar Peth, Vs. Madhavnagar, Sangli – 416416 PAN: BNDPB8481M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department by : Shri Rajesh Haladkar, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 27-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 28-08-2026
O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM:
The above two appeals filed by the respective assessee(s) are directed against the separate orders dated 24.03.2025 and 21.11.2025 respectively of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-Appeals, NFAC (“CIT(A) / NFAC”), Delhi relating to assessment year 2017-18. For the sake of convenience, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2 ITA Nos.1186 & 2988/PUN/2025
ITA No.1186/PUN/2025
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of purchasing non breeding / non milking buffalos from directly weekly animal market from various villages. She filed her return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.7,73,490/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the income offered by the assessee in her return of income is only Rs.7,73,490/- whereas the Profit and Loss Account shows the turnover of Rs.11,02,17,911/-. The Assessing Officer issued various notices to the assessee to explain the same. The Assessing Officer, in absence of any proper explanation and valid documentary evidences submitted by the assessee, made addition of Rs.95,30,871/-. He accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,03,04,361/- vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 23.05.2023.
On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the AO being barred by limitation, the same is invalid and hence needs to be quashed.
3 ITA Nos.1186 & 2988/PUN/2025
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice under section 148 being without DIN, the same is invalid and hence the consequent assessment order passed by the AO is also invalid. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order u/s 148A dated 21.07.2022 and consequent notice u/s 148 dated 22.07.2022 being issued with the approval of Pr. CIT, as against the required approval of Pr.CCIT, [the notice having been issued after the end of three years from the end of the assessment year), such notice u/s 148 and consequence assessment order is bad in law and hence needs to be quashed. 4. On the fact, circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO, representing the difference between AO's estimation of income at 8% of the turnover and the income declared by the appellant in her return of income, in spite of the fact that: a. The appellant has maintained proper books of account, got them audited u/s 44AB and had submitted all the details during the assessment proceeding, it was incorrect on the part of the AO to estimate income at 8%. b. The assessment of the appellant for AY 2018-19 and A Y 2019-20 are completed, on the same set of facts, accepting the book results without any additions thereto by the same NaFAC. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete or add a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.
The assessee has also raised additional ground which reads as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order under section 148A dated 21.07.2022 and the consequent notice under section 148 dated 22.07.2022, having been issued with the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, as against the required approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax the notice having been issued after the end of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year the said notice under section 148 and the consequent assessment order are bad in law, without jurisdiction, and hence need to be quashed. The appellant prays that the reassessment proceedings be held to be invalid and the notice under section 148 and the consequent assessment order be quashed accordingly.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the above additional ground submitted that the additional ground raised is purely legal in nature which goes to
4 ITA Nos.1186 & 2988/PUN/2025
the root of the matter and all the necessary facts are already available on record. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) and in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee should be admitted.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly objected to the admission of the additional ground raised by the assessee.
After hearing both the sides and considering the fact that the additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal in nature and all material facts necessary for adjudication of the issue are already available on record and no new facts are required to be investigated, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra) and in the case of Jute Corporation Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr (supra), the additional ground raised by the assessee is admitted for adjudication.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the additional ground raised by the assessee and submitted that the approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment is not valid as he obtained the approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of
5 ITA Nos.1186 & 2988/PUN/2025
the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as the notice for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 was issued after the end of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. He submitted that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of family members of the assessee on identical issue has quashed the re-assessment proceedings. He accordingly submitted that the assessment order passed being not in accordance with law, the same should be quashed.
The Ld. DR on the other hand supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making addition of Rs.95,30,871/-. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
We find the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maimunbi Husen Bepari vs. ITO vide ITA No.2986/PUN/2025 order dated 27.03.2026 for assessment year 2017-18 has quashed the assessment proceedings initiated u/s 148
6 ITA Nos.1186 & 2988/PUN/2025
on the ground that approval for reopening of the assessment has been obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as required u/s 151(1)(ii) of the Act. The relevant observations of the Tribunal read as under:
“Findings and Analysis : In this case Assessee had filed return of Income on 31/10/2027 declaring total income at Rs.1035950/- for AY 2017-18. It is mentioned in the Assessment order that Assessee is in the business of supplying animals to slaughter house. There was a search in the case of Allan Group. Assessee is one of the suppliers of Allan Group as mentioned in the Assessment Order.Based on the information the Assessing Officer (AO) issued Notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act .Then the AO passed an order u/s 148A(d) on 20/07/2022 and issued Notice u/s 148 dated 20/07/2022 for AY 2017-18. (copy of the Notice is at 7-8 of the paper book filed by AR).
At the outset ld.Authorised Representative of the Assessee invited our attention to the Notice u/s 148 and Order u/s 148A(d) which are at Page 7-17 of the paper book. Ld.AR submitted that the Order u/s 148A(d) and the Notice u/s 148 has been approved by the Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Pune. Ld.AR submitted that as per Section 151 after a lapse of three years from the end of the Assessment year, approval of the Pr.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or equivalent Officer. Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court and ITAT Pune filed in the paper book.
Ld.DR relied on the order of the AO and CIT(A).
In this case we have perused the Notice u/s 148 for AY 2017-18 dated 20/07/2022 which is at page 7-8 of the paper book. The said Notice has been approved by Pr.CIT-1 Pune on 04/07/2022 vide reference no. PN/Pr.CIT-1/148/2022- 23/1130dated 04/07/2022. The Notice u/s 148 issued by ITO is scanned and reproduced here under :
7 ITA Nos.1186 & 2988/PUN/2025
ITAT Pune in the case of Mahesh Gokuldas Fulwani ITA 873/PUN/2025 AY 2017- 18 vide order dated 30/072025 has held as under : Quote, “ 11. Since admittedly in the instant case the approval has been granted by the PCIT instead of Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, therefore, such approval being not in accordance with law is not a valid approval.
8 ITA Nos.1186 & 2988/PUN/2025
Therefore, such improper approval obtained u/s 151 of the Act vitiates the re-assessment proceedings. We, therefore, hold that the re-assessment proceedings being not in accordance with law, has to be quashed. We accordingly quash the re-assessment proceedings. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee challenging the re-assessment proceedings is accordingly allowed. ” Unquote. In the case of the Assessee Notice u/s 148 has been issued for AY 2017-18 after a lapse of Three Years from the end of the assessment year hence as per Section 151(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act approval of Pr.Chief Commissioner was required but in the case of the Assessee the Notice u/s 148 has been approved by Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, hence it is not a valid approval as per Section 151 of the Act. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Pune in Mahesh Fulwani(supra) we hold that the Notice u/s 148 is bad in law and accordingly the consequential Assessment Order is void ab initio. In the result Ground Number 1 regarding Approval ,raised by the Assessee is allowed.”
Admittedly, the Assessing Officer in the instant case obtained the approval for reopening of the assessment from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as required u/s 151(1)(ii) of the Act. Respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal cited (supra), we quash the notice issued u/s 148 and the consequent assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as bad in law. Since the assessee succeeds on the legal issue, the other grounds are not being adjudicated. The additional ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed.
ITA No.2988/PUN/2025
Both the parties have unanimously consented and submitted that the facts of the case are same as narrated in the above ITA No.1186/PUN/2025. In this case
9 ITA Nos.1186 & 2988/PUN/2025
also, the assessee has challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings on the same ground. We have already decided the issue and allowed the additional ground raised by the assessee. Following similar reasonings, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee. The additional ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed.
In the result, both appeals of the respective assesse(s) are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th August, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 28th August, 2026 GCVSR Gajjala Chinna Digitally signed by Gajjala Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy Venkata Subba Reddy Date: 2026.08.28 16:42:59 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
10 ITA Nos.1186 & 2988/PUN/2025
S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before 3 JM/AM the Second Member Draft discussed/approved by 4 AM/AM Second Member Approved Draft comes to the Sr. 5 Sr. PS/PS PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to the 9 Office Superintendent Date on which file goes to the 10 A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dikshant Nim vs. Union Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Pankaj Patil vs. Branch Manager Hdfc BankMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Rudra Pratap Singh vs. The Union Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
