ITO 19 2 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEELESH HASMUKH DOSHI HUF, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8645/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 June 2026AY 2018-195 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment proceedings beyond three years was obtained from the incorrect authority (Principal Commissioner instead of Principal Chief Commissioner), rendering the proceedings void ab initio. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was sustained.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A) orders for AY 2016-17 and 2018-19. The assessee argued that notices under Section 148 were issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, requiring approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner, not the Principal Commissioner.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year are valid if approval is obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner as required by Section 151(ii).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151(ii),Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah
For Respondent: Ms. Shababa Parveen, CIT-DR, Shri Swapnil Choudhari (Sr.DR)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITAs No. 8644 & 8645/Mum./2025 (Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19) ITO, Ward – 19(2)(4), 507, Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Mumbai - 400012 PAN : AAAHN3279E ……………. Appellant v/s

Neelesh Hasmukh Doshi HUF, 901, Parimal Apt. Gulmohar Road, Andheri (W), ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400007

Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by : Ms. Shababa Parveen, CIT-DR Shri Swapnil Choudhari (Sr.DR)

Date of Hearing – 15/06/2026 Date of Order – 19/06/2026

O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, J.M. These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 30.10.2025, for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Assessing Officer for both these assessment years issued notices u/s

2 ITA No.8644 & 8645/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17 & 2018-19)

148 of the Act after obtaining approval u/s 151(ii) of the Act from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 19, Mumbai, which is bad in law. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessments sought to be reopened u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19 were beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment years and, therefore, an approval u/s 151(ii) of the Act could only be granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and not by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to page 10 of the compilation, submitted that for both the assessment years i.e., A.Y. 2016-17 and A.Y. 2018-19, notices u/s 148 were issued on 27.07.2022 and 28.04.2022, respectively, which are beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment years 2016-17 and 2018- 19, therefore, the same are bad in law. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. Chitra Supekar vs. ITO, (2023) 453 ITR 530 (Bom.) and Cipla Pharma and Life Sciences Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2024) 164 taxmann.com 663 (Bom.). Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the case of ITO vs. Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia, (2024) 164 taxmann.com 41 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the SLP filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in

3 ITA No.8644 & 8645/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17 & 2018-19)

the case of Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia vs. ITO, (2024) 469 ITR 262 (Bom.).

3.

On the other hand, Ld. DR, insofar as the assessment year 2018-19 is concerned, submitted that the notice was issued within the limitation period. Ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Albert Joseph Rozario vs. ITO in ITA No.1168/Mum/2025 dated 22.07.2025.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court relied upon. Perusal of the notices issued u/s 148 and the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act clearly suggests that approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. Chitra Supekar (supra) held that where the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 148A(d) after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year without obtaining approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as contemplated by section 151(ii) of the Act, the same would invalidate the reassessment proceedings. A similar view has been taken by the

4 ITA No.8644 & 8645/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17 & 2018-19)

Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cipla Pharma and Life Sciences Ltd. (supra).

5.

In the circumstances, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that the mandatory sanction as required u/s 151(ii) was not obtained from the specified authority for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19 and, thus, the initiation of reassessment proceedings in the present case was without authority of law and void ab initio. We sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject Ground No. 3 of the Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue.

6.

Since we have held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings in the present case was without authority of law and void ab initio on a legal ground, the other grounds raised by the Revenue need not be adjudicated at this stage since they have become academic in nature, and they are left open.

7.

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/06/2026

- Sd/- Sd/- CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED: 19/06/2026 Prabhat

5 ITA No.8644 & 8645/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17 & 2018-19)

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) 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 →