MEETA LAXMAN ROOPCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. WARD 28(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRIOM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3276/Mum/2026 (Assessment year: 2017-18)

Meeta Laxman Roopchandani vs ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Navi Mumbai Shop No.5, Plot No.45, Vashi Railway Station, 3rd& 4th floor, 6th Tower Complex, Vashi, Tathagat C.H.S. Ltd., Sector 9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Navi Mumbai-400705 PAN:AAOPR0339P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue by : Shri Ashish Kumar (CIT.DR) Date of hearing : 17/06/2026 Date of pronouncement : 19/06/2026 O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2017-18, date of order 22.12.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 10.05.2023.

2 ITA No.3276/Mum/2026 Meeta Laxman Roopchandani 2. The registry informed that the appeal was filed with a delay of 24 days. The assessee submitted the condonation petition along with the notarized affidavit duly sworn by assessee herself on 16.06.2026. The Ld. DR had not made any strong objection on the submission of the assessee. Accordingly, we find that there is sufficient cause for minor delay of 22 days for filing appeal before the Bench. So, we condone the delay and the appeal is taken for adjudication. 3. The assessee has filed the revised ground which is reproduced as below: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment, which is bad in law and barred by limitation. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in reopening the assessment on the basis of an approval which is not in accordance with law and is invalid, illegal, and without jurisdiction. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking the provisions of Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is unjustified, improper, and bad in law. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- made under Section 69A on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

3 ITA No.3276/Mum/2026 Meeta Laxman Roopchandani assessee’s case was reopened u/sec. 147 of the Act by issuing the notice u/sec. 148 of the Act on 19/04/2021. Subsequent proceeding was initiated as per ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of UOI vs Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022) 138 Taxmann.com 64 (SC) dated 04/05/2022 and the notice was issued u/sec 148A(b) of the Act. Finally the assessment was completed & the Ld. AO by invoking provision u/sec. 69A added back the cash deposit amount to Rs.2,50,000/- with the total income of the assessee. The aggrieved assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee stated that the assessee was running the business of retail sale of saree and suitcase since 2007 and was situated in shop No.5, EV Line, Sector 9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. The cash was deposited out of his business realizations. Normally, the assessee deposited the cash in current account in Bank of Baroda (Vashi Navi Mumbai) in periodical basis but the said amount was duly deposited from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 during the demonetization period in her saving bank account. But without considering the assessee’s plea the Ld. CIT(A) uphold the impugned addition. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

4 ITA No.3276/Mum/2026 Meeta Laxman Roopchandani competent sanctioning authority for the issuance of notice under section 148A of the Act. It was contended that the approval accorded by Pr. CIT-27 vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings, rendering the notice issued under section 148 of the Act bad in law. In this regard, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the order passed under section 148 of the Act dated 22.07.2022, wherein the relevant noting recorded by the Ld. AO. The relevant notice is reproduced as below:-

5 ITA No.3276/Mum/2026 Meeta Laxman Roopchandani

6 ITA No.3276/Mum/2026 Meeta Laxman Roopchandani

7 ITA No.3276/Mum/2026 Meeta Laxman Roopchandani 11. In Manish Financials, for AY 2016–17, the Bench found that the notice issued under Section 148 was approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, as mandated. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment order were deemed invalid. Applying the same rationale here, it is evident that for both assessment years under consideration, the sanctioning authority failed to comply with the specific requirements of Section 151(ii) of the Act. Since the notices were issued under the new regime but lacked the necessary approval from the appropriate authority, the sanction process stands invalid. As a result, the notices under Section 148 are deemed to have no legal foundation. In light of this, the assessment orders passed by the Ld. AO under Sections 148/143(3) are quashed. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural compliance, particularly regarding approval from the correct authority, is a fundamental requirement under the Act. 12. Accordingly, the ground no-2 of the appeal for AYs. 2016-17 & 207-18 are allowed. As the legal ground of the assessee is survived, the other grounds are only for academic purposes and do not require further deliberation.”

8 ITA No.3276/Mum/2026 Meeta Laxman Roopchandani years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the mandatory sanction is required to be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General, and not from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in Ashok Amritlal Shah (supra), after considering the statutory scheme under the new reassessment regime and the binding judicial precedents, has categorically held that sanction granted by an authority not competent under section 151(ii) vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings and renders the notice issued under section 148 invalid in law. The identical issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cipla Pharma and Life Science Ltd. vs DCIT reported in [2024] 164 taxmann.com 663 (Bom). In that case, the reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2016-17 were initiated under the new reassessment regime pursuant to a notice issued under section 148 after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The approval for issuance of the notice was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). However, under section 151(ii) of the Act, where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval is required to be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner/Principal Director General or, in their absence, the Chief Commissioner/Director General. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the sanction accorded by the PCIT was not in conformity with the mandate of section 151(ii) of the Act. Since the approval had been obtained from an authority not competent under the statute, the jurisdictional requirement for issuance of notice under section 148 was not satisfied. Accordingly, the Court quashed the order passed under section 148A(d) as well as the consequential notice issued

9 ITA No.3276/Mum/2026 Meeta Laxman Roopchandani under section 148, holding the entire reassessment proceedings to be invalid in law. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court and Coordinate Bench and applying the same to the facts of the present case, we hold that the approval granted by the Ld. Pr. CIT-27, Mumbai, being not in accordance with section 151(ii) of the Act, is invalid. Consequently, the notice issued under section 148 and the subsequent reassessment proceedings lack legal foundation and are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the reassessment itself is held to be invalid, the other grounds raised in the appeal become academic in nature and do not require adjudication. The addition stands deleted.

10 ITA No.3276/Mum/2026 Meeta Laxman Roopchandani 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI