SANTOSH SHASHIKANT TIRODKAR,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: I BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 735/MUM/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/Assmt. Year: 2018-19) Permanent Account Number: ABWPT5023H INT TAX WARD 4(1)(1) SANTOSH SHASHIKANT TIRODKAR BKC, GILBAN AREA, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA 904 GREEN WOOD CHS ANDHERI KURLA ROAD,ANDHERI EAST EAST, MUMBAI Vs. CHAKHALA MUMBAI SUBURBAN, MUMBAI-400051, MUMBAI-400093, MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA (प्रत्यर्थी Respondent) (अपीलार्थी Appellant)

निर्धाऩरतीद्वधरध/Assessee represented by: Shri Sanket Joshi, CA (Virtually Present) रधजस्वद्वधरध/Revenue represented by: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

सुिवधईकीतधरीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 20-Feb-2026 घोर्णधकीतधरीख / Date of pronouncement: 18.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order passed by theIncome-tax Officer Intl Tax Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai vide DIN:ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1072039974(1) dated 09.01.2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) pursuant to the directions of ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide DIN:

ITBA/DRP/F/144C(5)/2024-25/1070966601(1) dated 16.12.2024 u/s. 144C(5) of the Act.

1) The notice u/s 148 issued on 22.04.2022 by the Jurisdictional A.O. is contrary to the CBDT Mandate issued vide notification dated 29.03.2022 read with section 151A of the Act, directing that all notices u/s 148 after 29.03.2022 shall be issued under the Faceless Scheme and not by Jurisdictional A.O.s and therefore, the reasst. order passed u/s 147 in pursuance to such invalid notice u/s 148 may be declared as null and void in law. 2) The learned A.O./ D.R.P. erred in making the addition u/s 56(2)(x) of Rs.1,08,28,500 by taxing the difference between actual consideration and stamp duty valuation of Flat C – 902 and C – 903, Park Royale, CTS No. 126, Andheri (East), Mumbai stated in Regt. Agreements to Sale dated 02.01.2018 by holding that the second proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) was not applicable without appreciating that the said addition was not justified on facts and in law. 3) The learned A.O./ D.R.P. ought to have appreciated that the rights in the impugned flats were allotted by the builder to the appellant vide Allotment letters dated 31.12.2012 and the appellant had also paid part consideration to the builder by handing over account payee cheques dated 31.12.2012, which were cleared on 26.03.2013 and hence, the stamp duty valuation of the said flats as on 31.12.2012 which was lower than the actual consideration, should have been adopted as per the second proviso to section 56(2)(x)(b) and hence, no addition u/s 56(2)(x) was warranted. 4) Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee submits that the impugned transaction was negotiated and finalized in the calendar year 2012 i.e. much prior to the introduction of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)/ (x)(b) introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2014 and therefore, the said provisions are not attracted in the present case and hence, the addition made u/s 56(2)(x) in the present case, deserves to be deleted. 5) Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee submits that vide the agreement to sale dated 02.01.2018, the assessee had only acquired rights to acquire the impugned flat from builder after completion of construction and the said agreement did not result into receipt of any immovable property being land or building as contemplated u/s 56(2)(x) and therefore, the addition made u/s 56(2)(x) by the A.O./ D.R.P. in the present case, is not justified on facts and in law. 6) Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee submits that he is co-owner of the above flats having only 50 per cent ownership in the said flats and therefore, if any addition is to be made u/s 56(2)(x), then the A.O. may be directed to restrict the addition to 50 per cent of the total difference between stamp duty valuation and actual consideration. 7) The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.

2.1. Assessee has raised the following additional ground of appeal:

1) The assessee submits that the notice u/s 148 for A.Y.2018-19 has been issued on 22.04.2022 and thus, as per the provisions of section 151 as they stood as on the date of issuing the notice u/s 148, it was mandatory to obtain the approval from Pr. CCIT/Pr. DGIT before issuing the said notice u/s 148 dated 22.04.2022, which was admittedly not done by the A.O. in the instant case,a therefore, the notice u/s 148 issued only by obtaining approval u/s 151 dated 21.04.2022 from PCIT, Mumbai - 17 vide Reference No. 100000029035282, may be declared as null and void in law.

2.2. From the above, we note that in the additional ground filed by the assessee, he has raised jurisdiction issues whereby the approval obtained by ld. AO for issuing notice u/s 148 dated 22.04.2022 is bad in law in terms of provisions contained in section 151 as it is not by the specified authority. Since the additional ground goes to the roots of the matter, we first take up the additional ground for our adjudication, there being no objection from the other side for its admission.

“151.Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be,— (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or 33[***] Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year:” 7. As could be seen from the provision contained u/s. 151 of the Act reproduced above, as per clause (i), in a case where action u/s. 148 and Section 148A of the Act is initiated before expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year,the specified authority who can grant sanction/approval is the Principal Commissioner or Principal Director General or Commissioner or Director of Income Tax. However, as per clause (ii), if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority, who can grant sanction is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General is available then Chief Commissioner or Director General of Income Tax. It is noteworthy, akin to third and fourth provisos, which were incorporated in Section 149(1) of the Act under the new regime effective from 01.04.2021, no corresponding amendment was made to Section 151 of the Act. By virtue of Finance Act, 2023 effective from 01.04.2023, the following proviso was added to Section 151 of the Act. “Providedthat the period of three years for the purposes of Clause (i) shall be computed after taking into account, the period of limitation as excluded by the third, fourth and fifth provisos or extended by the sixth proviso to sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act.” 8. Thus, as per Section 151 of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Finance Act, 2023, the limitation prescribed under Clause (i) of Section 151 of the Act was prior to expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and without benefit of further extension in terms with third, fourth or fifth proviso under sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act. 9. Therefore, keeping in view the provision contained under sub section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, which makes the limitation provided u/s. 149(1) of the Act subject to the timeline provided u/s. 151 of the Act, the limitation provided u/s. 149(1) of the Act including the provisos cannot get imported for the purpose of extending the limitation u/s. 151(i) of the Act prior to the amendment of section 151 of the Act by Finance Act, 2023. That being the case, the timeline for sanction by specified authority fixed u/s. 151 of the Act has to be scrupulously followed. 10. At this stage, it is to be noted that the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the decisions referred to by my learned brother Accountant Member in his order has specifically held that the proviso inserted to Section 151 of the Act by Finance Act, 2023, effective from 01.04.2023 will not apply prior to its effective date. Pertinently, the line of argument taken by the Department in the case of Albert Joseph Rozario vs. ITO (Supra) was not for the first time. Identical argument was advanced by the Department in following two cases dealt by the Coordinate Benches: (i). Davos International Fund Vs. ACIT, Mumbai, ITA No. 1190/Mum/2024 dated 13.01.2025. (ii). ACIT vs. Asha P. Kedia [2025] 174 taxmann.com 99 (Mumbai-Trib.) 11. While dealing with the contentions of learned Departmental Representative in case of Davos International Fund (Supra), the Coordinate Bench has held as under: “7. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. In assessee's case the 148A notice for AY 2017-18 was issued on 12.03.2022 and the order disposing the objections of the assessee was passed on 04.04.2022 under section 148A(d) of the Act. The AO issued notice under section 148 dated 04.04.2022. On perusal of the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and 148 (page 42 to 46 and 47 of PB) we notice that the impugned notices are issued after obtaining the prior approval of CIT (IT), Mumbai-2. The case of the revenue is that the notice dated 04.04.2022 is issued within three years since as per the 5th proviso to section 149, the AO has got additional 9 days for issue of notice under section 148 i.e. upto 09.04.2022. since the extended time of 9 days i.e. from 22.03.2022 to 31.03.2022 was given to the assessee. Therefore, it is argued by the revenue that notice issued on 04.04.2022 is within period of three years and the approval has been correctly obtained by the authority as specified in section 151(i) of the Act. The assessee is contending that the 5th proviso to section 149 under which the revenue is taking cover is inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and therefore not applicable to assessee's case. In this regard, we notice that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court iIn the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd (supra) has held that- “1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 19th March 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice both dated 7th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. One of the grounds raised is that the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is invalid inasmuch as the sanction has been admittedly issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT") and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT"). 2. Petitioner's request for a copy of the sanction has also been denied. Even in the affidavit in reply, the Department is refusing to give the sanction which makes us wonder what is the national secret involved in that, that Assessee is being refused what he is rightfully entitled to receive from the Department. In the affidavit in reply, the stand taken by the Revenue is it will be made available during the re- assessment proceeding. 3. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai 5. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-19 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 has been inserted only with effect from 1" April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand. 4. In this circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 under section 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside.” 8. Similar view is held by the jurisdictional High Court also in other cases as listed herein above. In the decision of the Vodafone Idea (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has given a specific finding that the proviso to section 151 extending the time limit as per the third, fourth or fifth proviso to section 149 is not applicable for AY 2018-19 as the same is inserted only w.e.f. 01.04.2023. When we apply the said ratio to assessee's case, in our considered view, the claim of the revenue that the period of 3 years expires only on 09.04.2022 is not correct and that revenue cannot take shelter under the proviso to section 151 which came into effect only from 01.04.2023. Accordingly the notice issued on 04.04.2022 by the AO is issued beyond three years and therefore the approval should have been obtained by the authorities as specified under section 151(ii) Principle Chief Commission. As already stated the approval in assessee's case is obtained from CIT(IT) and therefore we are inclined to agree with the contention of the assessee that the notice under section 148 has been issued without obtaining the approval from the correct authority as specified under section 151. Respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court we hold that the notice issued by the AO under section 148 without obtaining approval from correct appropriate authority is invalid and the assessment done under section 147 r.w.s. 144(13) of the Act is liable to be quashed.” 12. Similar view was reiterated by the Coordinate Bench in case of ACIT vs. Asha P. Kedia (Supra). It is relevant to observe, though the aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Benches were rendered at a prior point of time and were available when the appeal of Albert Joseph Rozario (Supra) vs. ITO (Supra) was taken up before another Coordinate Bench, however, either knowingly or unknowingly, these decisions of the Coordinate Benches were not brought to the notice of the learned Bench. It appears so, because, there is no reference of these decisions in case of Albert Joseph Rozario vs. ITO (Supra). Had these decisions of Coordinate Benches been brought to the notice of learned Bench deciding the case of Albert Joseph Rozario (Supra), a different view might have been taken. In any case of the matter, the point of time from which the proviso to Section 151 of the Act would be applicable was considered by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in at least four judgments. Three of these judgments have already been referred to in the decision of my learned brother Accountant Member. Even in case of Agnello Oswin Dias vs. ACIT [2014] 161 taxmann.com 16 (Bombay), the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court, while reiterating the view that after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Act is PCCIT, has held that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act having been inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2023 shall not be applicable prior to 01.04.2023. Meaning thereby, the proviso will not have retrospective effect. These decisions of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court, being directly on the issue, constitute binding precedents. 13. In any case of the matter, Sections 149 and 151 of the Act have been enacted for different purposes and operate in different situations. While Section 149 of the Act, prescribes limitation for issuance of notice u/s. 148 and 148A of the Act, Section 151 of the Act prescribes the timeline for the specified authority to grant sanction for Section 148 and 148A of the Act. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be observed that prior to insertion of proviso u/s. 151 of the Act by Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. 01.04.2023, the specified authority who can grant sanction for initiating proceedings u/s. 148A and issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act after expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year is PCCIT/CCIT in terms with Section 151(ii) of the Act. Hence, in absence of any enabling provision u/s. 151 of the Act,the 3rd, 4th and 5th or 6th provisos of Section 149(1) of the Act cannot be read into Section 151 of the Act to extend the time limit u/s. 151(i) of the Act. 14. In view of aforesaid, I fully agree with the decision of my learned brother Accountant Member that, both the order passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act and notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act are invalid due to lack of sanction by the specified authority as specified u/s. 151(ii) of the Act. As a natural corollary, the assessment order passed in consequence thereof is also invalid. Hence, the ground is allowed.”

4.1. We also take note of the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay which had the occasion to deal for the same assessment year, i.e., 2018-19, in the case of Pradeep Himatlal Shah vs. ITO [2025] 170 taxmann.com 471 (Bom). The relevant portion from this decision is extracted below: “Where order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 were issued beyond a period of three years, sanction to pass order and issuance of notice was required to be accorded by Principal Chief Commissioner as provided under section 151(ii); sanction granted by Principal Commissioner was not proper and thus, reopening notice was invalid”

5. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial precedents and considering the facts stated above 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 22.04.2022. 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-17, 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.

5.1. Keeping in juxtaposition the undisputed and the uncontroverted facts and the judicial precedents as stated above, 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 passed thereafter are also quashed. Accordingly, additional ground raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed.

5.2. Since the impugned reassessment order has been quashed in terms of above finding while adjudicating on the additional ground, all

the other grounds are rendered academic in nature and therefore, needs no separate adjudication.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 18th May, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Amit Shukla) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 18th May, 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