MAMTA AMRISH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6742/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 April 2026AY 2017-187 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 correct specified authority as per Section 151 of the Act, given that the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the notice and reassessment proceedings were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened for AY 2017-18 based on information regarding accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 148 after obtaining approval from the Principal CIT. The assessee challenged the validity of this approval and the reassessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the approval obtained by the AO for issuing the notice under Section 148 was valid, considering the time elapsed since the end of the assessment year and the amended provisions of Section 151.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151,Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, CA
For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.03.2026Pronounced: 30.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6742/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mamta Amrish Jain Income Tax Officer, C-501, Floor, 5, Tower, s Ward 15(2)(1), C Beaumonde, Mumbai Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Nr. Marathe Udyog Bhavan, Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025 (PAN: AAEPJ8335M) Appellant Respondent Present for: Appellant by : Shri Aditya Ramchandran, CA Respondent by : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2026 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A), vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080328323(1), dated 03.09.2025, passed against the assessment order by the Assessment Unit, u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 11.04.2023, for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under:

2 ITA No. 6742/Mum/2025 Mamta Amrish Jain AY 2017-18 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) has not considered the ground raised by appellant w.r.t. "Assessing Officer has erred in passing the order under Section 148A (d) and issuing the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the Pr. CIT. Mumbai-1 which was not the correct 'specified authority' as per Section 151 (amended with effect from 1-4-2021) who should have approved it when three years have already elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.

2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) has not considered the ground raised by appellant w.r.t. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3) has erred in issuing the notice u/s. 148 dated 27.07.2022 without appreciating that he was not having the jurisdiction for the same in view of Section 151A and the notification dated 29.03.2022 issued thereunder notifying e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme. 2022 and, thereby. rendering the said the notice as well as the entire assessment proceeding as null and void."

3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing a notice u/s 148 dated 24.07.2022 without complying with the requirements of Circular No.19 of 2019 dated 14th August, 2019 issued by the CBDT.

4) Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming additions made by Ld AO on account of gain on sale of shares from sale of script of GBFL & Monotype India amounting to Rs. 1,28,63,625/-under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5) Learned CIT(A) has also placed reliance on SEBI order dated 25.08.2008 as referred by Ld AO in assessment order u/s 147 of 1.T.Act, 1961 dated 11.04.2023 without considering the fact that referred SEBI order has not named appellant as beneficiary & transaction undertaken during the year under consideration has no connection with appellant.

6) Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming additions made by Ld AO on account of commission amounting to Rs. 2,57,272/- under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3.

We note that in appeal filed by the assessee, she has raised jurisdiction issues whereby the approval obtained by ld. AO for issuing notice u/s 148 dated 27.07.2022 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

3 ITA No. 6742/Mum/2025 Mamta Amrish Jain AY 2017-18 jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which renders the entire proceeding bad in law.

4.

Brief facts as culled out from the records are that assessee filed her return on 02.08.2017, reporting total income at Rs.17,19,430/-. Ld. Assessing Officer received information in the category of High Risk Transaction CRIU/VRU information, on Insight Portal of the department that a search and survey action was conducted on a syndicate of persons led by Shri Naresh Jain on 19.03.2019 by DDIT (Inv) unit-7(1) & 7(3) Mumbal. Ld. Assessing Officer received the information that assessee is one of the beneficiaries for the transaction of Rs. 1,28,63,625/- in the form of accommodation entries. Case of the assessee was taken up for reassessment for which notice under Sec. 148 was issued on 20.04.2021 under the erstwhile regime of reassessment provisions of the Act. Ld. AO completed the impugned reassessment by making addition of Rs. 1,28,63,625/- towards sale consideration of the scrips, treating it as non-genuine credits in respect of transaction of long-term capital gain reported by the assessee in her 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. 2,57,272/- by taking 2% 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.

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 20.04.2021. Since this notice was issued under the

4 ITA No. 6742/Mum/2025 Mamta Amrish Jain AY 2017-18 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 27.07.2022 recommending the reopening of the case u/s.148.

6.

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 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.

6.1. An order u/s. 148A(d) was passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(3), Mumbai, dated 27.07.2022 recommending the re-opening of the case u/s. 148, wherein, in para-4, it is noted that prior approval of PCIT-1, Mumbai, vide reference no. Pr.CIT-1/MUM/148A(d)/2022-23, dated 26.07.2022, 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 – 1, Mumbai”.

5 ITA No. 6742/Mum/2025 Mamta Amrish Jain AY 2017-18 7. On the above stated factual position, the issue contended before us is no longer res integra, dealt by plethora of decisions by the Coordinate Benches as well as by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Alag Property Construction Pvt. Ltd. ACIT [2025] 179 taxmann.com 578 (Bom). Hon'ble Court while dealing with this issue, by taking cognizance of the decision of the Hon'ble Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agrawal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC) and in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) notes the factual position of its case in para – 9 and 10 reproduced as under: “9. In the present case, the period of three years from the end of the A.Y. 2017- 18 fell for completion on 31 March 2021. As the expiry date fell during the time period of 20th March 2020 and 31st March 2021, under Section 3(1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (for short "TOLA"), the authority specified under Section 151(f) of the new regime could have granted sanction only till 30th June 2021. 10. On perusal of the order dated 18.08.2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act we find that the aforesaid order was passed after taking approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No.2). Since the aforesaid order was passed, as well as the notice under section 148 was issued, after the expiry of three years from the end of A.Y. 2017-18, as per the substituted 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.” 7.1. These facts are similar to the present case before us which have already been narrated in the above paragraphs. Hon'ble Court concluded that where order u/s. 148A(d) was passed beyond three years from the relevant Assessment Year and approval was obtained from Principal CIT instead of the required authority prescribed u/s. 151(ii), non-compliance of such statutory mandate and time limits vitiates the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer rendering the said order u/s. 148A(d) and notice u/s.148 liable to be quashed. Relevant

6 ITA No. 6742/Mum/2025 Mamta Amrish Jain AY 2017-18 observations and findings in this regard from the said judgement are extracted below: “11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has drawn an illustration in para 78 of its order in the context of A.Y. 2017-18 (which is also the relevant Assessment year in the present Writ Petition) wherein it is categorically held that the authority specified under section 151(f) can accord sanction only upto 30.06.2021. This illustration makes it absolutely clear that when the period of three years from end of relevant Assessment Year expired between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021, the extension by virtue of TOLA was upto 30.06.2021 and not beyond. Thus, it can be said that the period of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year (in the present case A.Y. 2017-18) expired on 30.06.2021, whereas Respondent No.1, despite passing order under section 148A(d) on 18.08.2022, and issuing notice under section 148 on 23.08.2022 [in respect of Assessment Year 2017 18], has obtained approval of Respondent No.2 who is not the authority as prescribed under section 151(ii). 12. Non-compliance by Respondent No.1 with the provisions contained in Section 148A(d) read with Section 151(4) vitiates the jurisdiction of Respondent No.1 to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. 13. We are clearly of the view that the present matter stands covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and we are bound by it. Accordingly, we hold that the order dated 18.08.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice issued under section 148 dated and 23.08.2022 are bad in law, and hence, are required to be quashed and set aside. 14. We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 18.08.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice issued under section 148 dated 23.08.2022, and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom. 15. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. No order as to costs. 16. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.”

8.

Keeping in juxtaposition the undisputed and 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) as well as that of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Alag Property Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold that sanction by specified authority has not been obtained by the ld.

7 ITA No. 6742/Mum/2025 Mamta Amrish Jain AY 2017-18 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. Ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

9.

Ground raised on the merits of the case need no separate adjudication as jurisdictional issue has been held in favour of the assessee.

10.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Narender Kumar Choudhry] [Girish Agrawal] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 30 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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →