INCOMET TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. AMITKUMAR MOOLCHAND MEHTA, MUMBAI
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(ii) of the Act, as the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the notice and reassessment order were quashed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Sections 68 and 69 of the Income Tax Act for alleged non-genuine credits and unexplained expenditure related to long-term capital gains. The assessee filed cross-objections challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated, specifically concerning the proper authority for granting approval for issuing a notice under Section 148 when the reassessment is initiated after three years from the end of the assessment year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 68,Section 69,Section 148,Section 151,Section 151(ii)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH,
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 and 2017-18 ITO – 5(3)(1) vs Amit Kumar Moolchand Mehta R. No. 526, Aayakar Bhavan, 216, AC Mkt, Tardeo, Churchgate Mumbai – 400034 Mumbai - 400020 (PAN: ACRPM4567D) Appellant Respondent CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 [Arising out of ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025] Assessment Year: 2016-17 and 2017-18 Amit Kumar Moolchand Mehta vs ITO – 5(3)(1) 216, AC Mkt, Tardeo, R. No. 526, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400034 Churchgate Mumbai – 400020 (PAN: ACRPM4567D) Appellant Respondent Present for: Assessee by : Shri Dharmavir D. Yadav, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ujjwal Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 24.04.2026 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross objections by the assessee are against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A), vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1079896275(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079897474(1)
2 ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 Amitkumar Moolchand Mehta AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 dated 29.08.2025, passed against the assessment order by Income Tax Officer-5(3)(1), Mumbai u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 26.05.2023, for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Grounds taken by the Revenue in appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 are reproduced as under: 1 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by A.O of Rs.4,69,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of credit of Rs.4,69,000/- In the books of account of the assessee for the sale of shares which was treated as non genuine credits by A.O.
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by AO u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on unexplained expenditure to acquire accommodation entry for bogus long-term capital gain.
The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal.
2.1. Grounds taken by the Revenue in appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 are reproduced as under:
1 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by A.O of Rs. 32,00,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of credit of Rs. 32,00,000/-. In the books of account of the assessee for the sale of shares which was treated as non genuine credits by A.O.
Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by AO u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on unexplained expenditure to acquire accommodation entry for bogus long-term capital gain.
3 ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 Amitkumar Moolchand Mehta AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal.
2.2. Grounds taken by the assessee in his CO for A.Y. 2016-17 are reproduced as under: The Id JAO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28/07/2022 mentions that the prior approval has been taken of the 'Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 19 ('PCIT-19) which is bad in law as the approval should have been obtained in terms of section 151(ii) and not section 151(i) of the Act and the PCIT-19 cannot be the specified authority as per section 151 of the Act.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the reopening u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 is Bad in law as the conditions laid down in section 151A has not been followed, when the proceedings under section 148A was initiated by the Jurisdiction Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer as per Notification S.O. 1466(E) [NO. 18/2022/F. NO. 370142/16/2022-TPL (PART1), DATED 29-03-2022 titled "E-Assessment Of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" AND the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in [2024] in case of Hexaware Technologies [2024] 163 taxmann.com 396.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary any of the above grounds of cross objection at any time before the decision of the appeal.
2.3 Grounds taken by the assessee in his CO for A.Y. 2017-18 are reproduced as under: The Id JAO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28/07/2022 mentions that the prior approval has been taken of the 'Principal Commissioner of Income-tax 19 ('PCIT-19) which is bad in law as the approval should have been obtained in terms of section 151(ii) and not section 151(i) of the Act and the PCIT-19 cannot be the specified authority as per section 151 of the Act.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the reopening u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 is Bad in law as the conditions laid down in section 151A has not been followed, when the proceedings under section 148A was initiated by the Jurisdiction Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer as per Notification S.O. 1466(E) [NO. 18/2022/F. NO. 370142/16/2022-TPL (PART1), DATED 29-03-2022 titled "E-Assessment Of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022" AND the decision of the Hon'ble
4 ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 Amitkumar Moolchand Mehta AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 Bombay High Court in [2024] in case of Hexaware Technologies [2024] 163 taxmann.com 396. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary any of the above grounds of cross objection at any time before the decision of the appeal. 2.4. There is a delay of 30 days in filing the two Cross Objections by the assessee for which condonation petition is furnished. We have gone through the same and taken note of the reasoning given to explain the said delay. Considering the same, we find it appropriate to condone the delay and take them up for adjudication.
From the above, we note that in the cross objections filed by the assessee, he has raised jurisdiction issues whereby the approval obtained by ld. AO for issuing notice u/s 148 dated 28.07.2022 is bad in law in terms of provisions contained in Sec. 151(ii) as it is not by the specified authority. Assessee has also raised another jurisdictional issue whereby it is contended that proceedings u/s 148A was initiated by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) which renders the enter proceeding bad in law. Since both the cross objections are on identical issues and goes to the roots of the matter, we first take up these for our adjudication. We will thereafter come on the merits of the case as contested by the Revenue in its two appeals. Further, since the issues involved in both the assessment years are identical, both on merits and on jurisdictional issue, except for variation in quantum of addition made by the ld. AO for which ld. CIT(A) has granted relief, we take up both the appeals and cross objections for adjudication by passing this consolidated order.
5 ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 Amitkumar Moolchand Mehta AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 3.1. For our adjudication, A.Y. 2016-17 is taken as the lead year for drawing the basic facts and give our observation and findings on the same. Our observations and findings for this year shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal and CO for A.Y. 2017-18.
Brief facts as culled out from the records are that assessee had filed its return of income on 20.07.2016, reporting total income at Rs. 2,73,870/-. Ld. AO received information through insight portal that assessee is a beneficiary in respect of certain alleged bogus transactions of long term capital gain while dealing in certain scrips of listed companies. According to the ld. Assessing Officer, assessee had declared bogus long term capital gain of Rs. 4,60,831/- which was claimed exempt u/s 10(38). Case of the assessee was taken up for reassessment for which notice under Sec. 148 was issued on 25.04.2021 under the erstwhile provisions of the Act. Ld. AO completed the impugned reassessment by making addition of Rs. 4,69,000/- towards sale consideration of the scrips, treating it as non- genuine credits in respect of transaction of long term capital gain reported by assessee in its return, claiming it as exempt u/s 10(38). Ld. AO made the said addition towards sale proceeds u/s 68. Ld. AO also made addition of Rs. 28,140/- by taking 6% of the said sale consideration as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C by treating it as commission paid to acquire accommodation entry for alleged bogus long term capital gain. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee contested the additions so made. Also, assessee challenged the jurisdictional issues in terms of violation of provisions contained in Sec. 149(1) and Sec. 151 which were not adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A), though the same were discussed.
6 ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 Amitkumar Moolchand Mehta AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 5. We note that reasons to believe were recorded for initiating the reopening of proceedings and issuance of notice u/s.148, which was issued on 25.04.2021. Since this notice was issued under the erstwhile regime of re-assessment as provided u/s.148 r.w.s. 147 which has undergone total revamp by the Finance Act, 2021, the amendments brought in by the Finance Act 2021 led to several jurisdictional issues in respect of reassessment proceeding for which the matter travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the lead case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 130 taxmann.com 64 (SC), followed by the decision in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). As a fall out of the directions given in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra), ld. Assessing Officer in the present case complied with the same, after which an order u/s.148A(d) was passed dated 28.07.2022 recommending the reopening of the case u/s.148. Subsequent to this, notice u/s.148 was issued, dated 28.07.2022.
We have heard both the parties on their submissions relating to legal ground. We have also perused the judicial precedents relied upon for which relevant judicial orders are placed on record. We take up ground no. 1 raised by the assessee in his cross objection in respect of approval obtained by the ld. Assessing Officer for issuing notice u/s 148 as required u/s 151(ii) is bad in law. Merits of the case have not been argued upon by either party, nor any submission made to that effect.
6.1. An order u/s. 148A(d) was passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward- 23(3)(1), Mumbai, dated 28.07.2022 recommending the re-opening of the case u/s. 148. Subsequent to this, a notice u/s.148 was issued on
7 ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 Amitkumar Moolchand Mehta AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 28.07.2022 wherein, in para-3, it is noted that prior approval of PCIT- 19, Mumbai, vide reference no. Pr.CIT-19/148/2022-23, dated 27.07.2022, was obtained. A copy of approval is also placed in the paper book and its perusal reveals that it is signed by the authority “Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – 19, Mumbai”.
6.2. On the above stated set of facts, submission of the ld. Counsel is that in the provisions for re-opening of assessment upon amendment by Finance Act, 2021, the first proviso to section 148 refers to approval by specified authority which is to be obtained before issuing notice u/s. 148. Section 151 describes specified authority for the purpose of section 148 and 148A, based upon the time limits within which the reopening proceedings are to be initiated i.e.,
i. By Principal Commissioner of Income Tax or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have lapsed from the end of the Assessment Year.
ii. By Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have been lapsed from the end of the relevant Assessment Year.
Admitted position of fact in this case is that notice u/s.148 has been issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. Three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17 lapsed on 31.03.2020. As per section 149(1)(b) of the Act (new regime), re-assessment proceedings could have been initiated after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment
8 ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 Amitkumar Moolchand Mehta AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 Year only if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment is more than Rs.50,00,000/-. In the present case, the income alleged to have escaped assessment is Rs. 4,69,000/-. These admitted facts are relevant on the legal aspect relating to obtaining prior approval from the specified authority which are undisputed and nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to controvert the same.
7.1. We find that in the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (supra), Hon'ble Court after the fall out of its own decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) had dealt with the issue in respect of sanction of the specified authority and concluded that TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified u/s.151. According to the Hon'ble Court, the test to determine whether TOLA will apply to section 151 of the new regime is that if the time limit of three years from the end of the Assessment Year falls between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021 then, the specified authority u/s.151(i) has extended time till 30.06.2021 to grant the approval. According to the Hon'ble Court, Assessing Officers were required to issue the re-assessment notice u/s.148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Act read with TOLA. All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside. Hon'ble Court had elaborately dealt with this issue in Part E of its decision in para 73 to 78 which are extracted below: 73. Section 151 imposes a check upon the power of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtains the sanction of the specified authority before issuing a notice under Section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assesses from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments. 128 A table representing the prescription under the old and new regime is set out below:
9 ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 Amitkumar Moolchand Mehta AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18
The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under Section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner, and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under Section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of Ashish Agarwal (supra), after 1 April 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime. The effect of Section 151 of the new regime is thus: (i) If income escaping assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or
10 ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 Amitkumar Moolchand Mehta AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of three years; and (ii) If income escaping assessment is more than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) after three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. 76. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under Section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, non- compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limits prescribed under Section 151 affects their jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148. 77. Parliament enacted TOLA to ensure that the interests of the Revenue are not defeated because the assessing officer could not comply with the pre- conditions due to the difficulties that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 3(1) of TOLA relaxes the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021. TOLA will accordingly extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(i) has an extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) has time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval. The time limit for Section 151 of the old regime expires on 31 March 2021 because the new regime comes into effect on 1 April 2021. 78. For example, the three years time limit for assessment year 2017- 2018 falls for completion on 31 March 2021. It falls during the time period of 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, contemplated under
11 ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 Amitkumar Moolchand Mehta AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 Section 3(1) of TOLA. Resultantly, the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30 June 2021….. 81. This quote in Ashish Agrawal (supra) directed the Assessing Officers to “pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assessee concerned.” Further, it directed the Assessing Officers to issue a notice u/s.148 of the new regime “after following the procedure as required u/s.148-A.” Although this quote waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval u/s.148A(a) and section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for section 148A(d) and section 148. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an order u/s. 148A(d) or issuing a notice u/s.148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified u/s.151 of the new regime r.w. TOLA, where applicable…. 114. ……d. TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified u/s.151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an Assessment Year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority u/s.151(i) has extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval; …”
7.2. From the above, we note that in para 73, in the table last two rows relate to provisions of Section 151(i) and (ii) of the new regime prescribing the time limit as well as the specified authority. In para 75, it is very categorically mentioned by the Hon’ble Court that after 01.04.2021, in terms of Ashish Agrawal (supra) the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified u/s.151 of the new regime. This abundantly brings clarity on the aspect of obtaining approval for issue of notice u/s.148 which are fall out of the decision in Ashish Agrawal (supra). In para 77, objective of section 3(1) of TOLA is mentioned which is to relax the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021. Thus, the objective is specific for providing temporal flexibility. In para
12 ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 Amitkumar Moolchand Mehta AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 78, the same has been explained by an example taking Assessment Year 2017-18 which also in specific terms mentions that the authority specified u/s.151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30.06.2021. Thus, while concluding in para 81 on the issue obtaining approval, Hon’ble Court has specifically stated that the Assessing Officer is required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an order u/s.148A(d) or issuing a notice u/s.148. According to the Hon’ble Court, though it had waived off the requirement obtaining prior approval u/s.148A(a) and Section 148Ab, it did not waive the requirement for section 148A(d) and Section 148.
7.3. Taking into consideration the submissions made by both the sides and findings of the Hon’ble Court, we note that the issue we are presently addressing raised before us is not on the aspect of “when” for the procedural compliance for issuance of notice u/s.148 but on the aspect of “by whom” it ought to have been issued. Ld. DR has contended that there is hierarchical escalation vis-à-vis obtaining approval for issuing notice u/s.148. In this respect, Hon’ble Court has very categorically held in para 75 that the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified u/s.151 of the new regime for the notices issued in terms of Ashish Agrawal (supra) after 01.04.2021. Reference by ld. DR to Section 149(1)(a) deals with time limit for issuing notice u/s.148. Contention of the ld. Sr. DR that there is no hierarchical escalation for obtaining prior approval for issuing notice u/s.148 is not in coherence with the guidelines mandated by the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated above. Repeatedly, Hon’ble Court has stated including by way of illustration that TOLA extends time line from the old regime which survives making the notice validly
13 ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 Amitkumar Moolchand Mehta AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 issued subject to the approval requirements of Section 151 under the new regime. Accordingly, the prior approval requirement is mandated under the section 151 of new regime.
7.4. Thus, on the above stated facts and law, in the present case, three years had lapsed from the end of the Assessment Year when the order u/s.148A(d) and notice u/s.148 were issued on 28.07.2022. In the present case, since the order u/s. 148A(d) and notice u/s. 148 have been issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year, case of the assessee falls within the provisions of section 151(ii) of the amended law whereby the specified authority for grant of approval is specified as Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. Contrary to this requirement, the approval obtained is from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai. Accordingly, since a proper 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.
7.5. Keeping in juxtaposition the undisputed and the uncontroverted facts as stated above and the judicial precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal and Rajiv Bansal (supra), 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
14 ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 Amitkumar Moolchand Mehta AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 passed thereafter are also quashed. Ground no. 1 of cross objection raised by the assessee is allowed.
7.6. We also find our force from the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Ramesh Bachulal Mehta vs. Income Tax Officer [2025] 177 taxmann.com 606 (Bom) which dealt with similar issue on an identical fact pattern. Hon'ble Court held that “where re-assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2016-17 were initiated after expiry of three years, from end of relevant year, approval u/s.151(ii) was mandatorily required from higher authority, i.e., Pr. Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner and sanction by Pr. Commissioner was not valid”. It thus, held that “order passed u/s.148A(d) and consequential notice issued u/s.148, dated 15.07.2022 were bad in law for being violative of provisions of section 151(ii).”
7.7. Hon'ble Court gave similar findings in its decision in the case of Alag Property [2025] 179 taxmann.com 578 (Bom), dated 08.09.2025.
7.8. Since legal issue raised by the assessee vide ground no. 1 in the cross objection is held in his favour, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee on the issue relating to notice issued by ld. JAO instead of ld. FAO is left open. Further, grounds raised on the merits of the case by the Revenue in its appeal also needs no separate adjudication.
7.9. In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
15 ITA Nos. 6853 and 6854/Mum/2025 CO Nos. 11 and 12/Mum/2026 Amitkumar Moolchand Mehta AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 8. As already noted in the above paragraphs, the issues involved are identical in A.Y. 2017-18 also, our observations and findings given in appeal and cross objection for A.Y. 2016-17 apply mutatis mutandis for A.Y. 2017-18. Accordingly, for A.Y. 2017-18, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
In the result, two appeals by the revenue are dismissed and two cross objections by the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24.04.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- [Pawan Singh] [Girish Agrawal] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 24 April, 2026 MP, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1 The Appellant 2 The Respondent 3 DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4 Guard File 5 CIT BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
