HIGHWAY CONSUMER CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: E BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 1148/MUM/2026 िनधा�रण वष�/Assmt. Year: 2018-19) ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, HIGHWAY CONSUMER CO-OP MORARJEE MILLS SOCIETY LTD COMPOUND, NEXT TO 1-2 BANGLI, KHER NAGAR BHARATMATA CINEMA Vs. BANDRA (E), MUMBAI, MUMBAI- HALL, LALBAUG, PAREL, 400051, MAHARASHTRA MUMBAI MUMBAI-400012, MAHARASHTRA (अपीलाथ� Appellant) (��थ� Respondent) Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAAAH0035K िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee represented by: Shri Aditya Ramachandran, CA राज� व �ारा/Revenue represented by: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 22-Apr-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 17.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER 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/AST/S/147/2023-24/1062742537(1), dated 20.11.2025, passed against the assessment order by Assessment Unit, Delhi, u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 16.03.2024, for Assessment Year 2018-19.

1) Ground 1 - On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening of the assessment is bad in law in so far as sanction u/s 151 of the Act ought to have been sought from Pr. CCIT / Pr. DGIT / CCIT / DGIT since three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 is without jurisdiction. 2) Ground 2 - On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Asst. CIT, Circle 23(1), Mumbai has erred in passing the order u/s. 148A(d) and also issuing the notice u/s. 148 without appreciating that she was not having the jurisdiction for the same in view of Section 151A and the notification issued thereunder notifying e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 and, thereby, rendering the said order and the notice as well as the entire assessment proceeding as null and void. 3) Ground 3 - On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the delay in filing the appeal before Your Honours may please be condoned and the appeal of the appellant may please be restored back with the direction to the CIT (A) to adjudicate the grounds of appeal afresh. 4) Ground 4 - On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirmation the addition of Rs.1,30,49,000 under section 69A of the Act representing cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant.

DGIT/CCIT/DGIT, since three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant Assessment Year, while it has been sought from ld. PCIT, Mumbai-19.

“Having carefully perused the order proposed by my learned brother Accountant Member, I fully concur with the decision taken therein for the reasons setout hereunder: 2. At the outset, it must be stated, in addition to the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Appeal, the assessee vide application dated 25.07.2025 made under Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963 has urged an additional ground, being Ground No.9, challenging the validity of the order 3 passed under section (u/s.) 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) and the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act on account of lack of approval u/s. 151 of the Act by the specified authority. The issue raised in the additional ground being a purely legal and jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter and since can be decided based on materials available on record, we admit the additional ground for adjudication. 3. Since my learned brother Accountant Member has already discussed the facts, there is no need to repeat them. Suffice to say, the Assessing Officer (AO), while assuming jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2018-19 has issued show cause notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act on 20.03.2022. In response to the said show cause notice, the assessee furnished its reply on 30.03.2022. After considering the reply of the assessee, the AO passed an order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act on 06.04.2022. Simultaneously, on the very same day, the Assessing Officer issued the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, after seeking approval of CIT(IT), Mumbai-1. The aforesaid factual position remains uncontroverted. The assessee has pleaded before us that after expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year under dispute, as per Section 151(ii) of the Act, the specified authority, who can grant sanction/approval u/s. 148A and 148 of the Act is the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. It is the say of the assessee that since approval/sanction in the instant case has been obtained from CIT it is invalid. Hence, all actions taken in pursuance to such approval would also be invalid. In support of such contention, learned counsel has relied upon a number of judicial precedents referred to in the order proposed by my learned brother Accountant Member. 4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee was fair enough to bring to our notice a decision of the Coordinate bench in case of Albert Joseph Rozario vs. ITO, Mumbai, ITA No. 1168/Mum/2025 order dated 22.07.2025, wherein, a view has been taken that the limitation prescribed u/s. 149(1) of the Act for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act would also apply to sanction for issue of notice has provided u/s. 151 of the Act. As per the reasoning of the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid decision, applying the provisions contained in 3rd and 4th proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act as it stood then, the three year period in terms with Section 151(i) of the Act is to be determined after excluding the time allowed to the assessee as per show cause notice issued u/s. 148(b) of the Act and further additional time of seven days thereafter to the AO to issue the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. For the sake of completeness, we deem it appropriate to deal with this decision of the coordinate Bench. 5. At this stage, it is necessary to examine the provisions contained u/s. 149 of the Act. Prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 2021 effective from 01.04.2021, sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act provided that no notice u/s. 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, it further provided that in a case where the quantum of escaped income is Rs.1,00,000/- or more, instead of four years, six years limitation would be available. It further provided that if the escaped income relates to any asset located outside India, the limitation would get extended to sixteen years. The aforesaid provision was substituted by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. As per section 149(1) of the Act under the new regime, no notice u/s. 148 of the Act shall be issued for the relevant assessment year if three years have elapsed for the relevant assessment year. However, in a case where the income escaping assessment is Rs.50,00,000/- or more then the limitation for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act will get extended to ten years. The third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act provided that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee as per show cause notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act or the period during which proceeding u/s. 148 is stayed by an order of injunction of any court shall be excluded. The fourth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act provided that immediately after exclusion of period referred in third proviso, if the period of limitation available to the AO for passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and accordingly the period of limitation for issuance of notice u/s. 148 shall be deemed to have been extended. 6. Interestingly, sub section (2) to Section 149 of the Act provides that the limitation prescribed under sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act for issuance of notice shall be subject to the provisions of Section 151 of the Act. The use of word ‘shall’ in sub section (2) of Section 149 of the Act makes it clear that the limitation prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act is subject to the timeline prescribed u/s. 151 of the Act. In other words, the limitation prescribed u/s. 149(1) of the Act would not override the timeline prescribed for grant of approval by the specified authority u/s. 151 of the Act. Section 151 of the Act as it stood after substitution of earlier Section 151 of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 effective from 01.04.2021 and before its amendment by Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. 01.04.2023 reads as under: “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.

“Provided that 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.”

6.1. 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”

7.1. 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 section 151 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, grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 17 June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Sandeep Gosain) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 17 June, 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