RAJU PRAHLAD URADE ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 28 (2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2948/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2026AY 2017-185 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 for issuing the notice under section 148 was not obtained from the specified authority as required by section 151 of the Act. Therefore, the notice and subsequent assessment order were invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened for AY 2017-18. A notice under section 148A(b) was issued, followed by an order under section 148A(d) and a notice under section 148. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 99,30,080/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings due to the lack of proper approval from the specified authority under Section 151. The secondary issue concerned the validity of the addition made under Section 69A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2948/MUM/2025 (AY:2017-18) Raju Pralhad Urade, vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-28(2)(1), Gala No.A-248, A.P.M.C Veg Market Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station Sector-19,Turbhe Navi Mumbai - Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi 400 705. Mumbai-400 703. PAN/GIR No: AAAPU2036Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ketan Vajani (Virtually appeared) Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR Date of Hearing 11.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 08.06.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of

Income-Tax (Appeals), 47, Mumbai [in short, ‘CIT(A)’], dated 07.03.2025 for

the assessment year (AY) 2015-16.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. Objection against confirming additions made in pursuance of an invalid reassessment proceedings

(a) The Faceless Assessment Unit has erred in making an invalid reassessment in the case of the appellant and the National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the addition made in pursuance of such an invalid re-assessment proceedings.

(b) Your appellant respectfully submits that the reassessment made in his case is an invalid reassessment considering the following facts • That the approval required under the provisions of section 151 has not been obtained from the authority as specified in the section • That the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the Jurisidictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessment Unit as required under the provisions of section 151A of the Act and the notifications issued thereunder

(c) In view of the above, the appellant submits that the reassessment made in his case is itself invalid and the same deserves to be quashed. The appellant, prays that the same may please be quashed.

2.

Objection against confirming addition of Rs. 99,30,080/- made u/s. 69A of the Act.

(a) Without prejudice to the validity of reassessment, the CIT (A) -NFAC, has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 99,30,080/- made u/s 69A of the Act in the case of the appellant.

(b) Your appellant respectfully submit that the impugned addition is merely based on conjectures, surmises and suspicions and not supported by any evidence.

(c) The appellant further submits that the impugned addition is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The assessment unit has erred in not providing any material or opportunity to cross examine the persons whose statements have been used for making the addition in the case of the appellant and accordingly the addition is not justified for this reason as well.

(d) The appellant also submits that the provisions of section 69A of the Act can even otherwise not be applicable in respect of alleged on money paid by the appellant and therefore the assessment unit is not justified in invoking the provisions of the said section for making this addition

(e) In view of the above, the appellant prays that the impugned addition being not in accordance with the law, the same may please be deleted or any other relief as deemed fit may please be allowed to the appellant.”

3.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed return of income for

the AY 2017-18, declaring total income at Rs.2,38,210/-. The case was reopened

by issuing notice u/s 148 on 19.04.2021. Following the decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in case of UOI vs. Ashish Aggarwal (444 ITR 1), the above notice

was deemed to be notice u/s 148A of the amended section, as substituted by

Finance Act, 2021. Notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 11.05.2022. Assessee filed objection to the said notice vide letter dated 13.06.2022. Order u/s 148A(d) and

notice u/s 148 of the Act were issued on 22.07.2022. After hearing the assessee,

the AO added Rs.99,30,080/- to the total income in the order made u/s 147 r.w.s.

144B of the Act dated 25.05.2023. On appeal, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the

Tribunal. The ld. AR filed a paper book giving copies of the notices issued u/s 148,

148A(b), 148A(d) and 148 of the Act and submitted that the notice u/s 148 of the

Act for AY 2017-18 was issued on 22.07.2022, which was after 3 years from the

end of the relevant AY 2017-18. The approval for issue of notice u/s 148 was given

by the PCIT-27, Mumbai instead of the Pr. CCIT or Pr. DGIT or CCIT or DGIT, who

was the specified authority. Hence, the notice was bad in law and invalid.

Accordingly, the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 25.05.2023 is also invalid.

The Ld. AR relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Ramesh Bachulal Mehta v.

ITO, 177 taxmann.com 606 (Bom.); (ii) Pradeep Himatlal Shah v. ITO, 170

taxmann.com 471 (Bom.) and (iii) ITO v. Pradeep Himatlal Shah (SLP dismissed),

170 taxmann.com 472 (SC).

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR relied on order of lower authorities.

6.

We have heard both parties and perused the materials on record. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR. The issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal is that in case where order u/s 148A(d) of the Act (new regime) has been passed and notice u/s 148 of the Act (new regime) has been issued for the AY 2017-18 after 30.06.2021, whether the Pr. CIT u/s 151(i) of the Act or the Pr. CCIT u/s 151(ii) of the Act is the “specified authority” for granting necessary approval. In our view, the above issue is no longer res integra and stands settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case UOI v. Rajeev Bansal, (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC). In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, while dealing with the issue of approval from specified authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act, made it clear that the specified authority u/s 151(i) of the Act (new regime) could grant sanction till 30.06.2021 and not thereafter. In the present case, order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act (new regime) were issued on 22.07.2022, i.e., after 30.06.2021 with approval of the PCIT-27, Mumbai and not the Pr. CCIT/CCIT. This has not been controverted by the Ld. Sr. DR. As per the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the authority specified u/s 151(ii) was the Pr. CCIT and not Pr. CIT. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Ramesh Bachulal Mehta (supra) has also held that where assessment proceedings for AY 2016-17 were initiated after expiry of 3 years from the relevant AY, approval u/s 151(ii) was mandatorily required from higher authority i.e., Pr. CCIT/CCIT and the sanction by the Pr. CIT was not valid. Therefore, we hold that in absence of the approval from the specified authority u/s 151(ii) of the Act, the AO lacked jurisdiction to pass order u/s 148A(d) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act (new regime) for AY 2017-18. Therefore, the impugned order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act, both dated 22.07.2022 are quashed and set aside as being bad in law. Resultantly, the order passed u/s

147 r.w.s. 144B dated 07.01.2025 is also quashed.

7.

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

Order is pronounced on 08.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (BIJYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *Aniket Chand; Sr. PS MUMBAI Date: 08.06.2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. Guard File

By Order

Assistant 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 →