RITESH SHIWALAMAL SHUGWANI,WANI vs. ITO WARD - 1, YAVATMAL, YAVATMAL

ITA 696/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 June 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment beyond three years was obtained from the incorrect authority (PCIT-2, Nagpur) instead of the CCIT/PCCIT, as mandated by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction was vitiated.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an assessment order passed under section 147, which stemmed from a reassessment initiated based on a notice under section 148A(d). The assessee contended that the assumption of jurisdiction was vitiated due to improper approval.

What were the issues?

Whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was valid when the approval for reopening the assessment beyond three years was obtained from an authority not specified by the Supreme Court's ruling.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148A(d),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Jain, Advocate &, Shri Mahavir Atal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Hearing: 16.06.2026Pronounced: 18.06.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 07/10/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is emanating from the assessment order dated 15.05.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that among other grounds on merits, assessee has raised ground Nos. 1 & 2, by which the assumption of juri iction on the basis of an approval sought under section 148A(d) is alleged to be vitiated and the same has been granted by PCIT-2, Nagpur. Though, at the time of hearing, Ld.DR had sought opportunity to call for rep

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →