INCOME TAX OFFICER , JALGAON vs. BHUSHAN DILIP PATIL, JALGAON

ITA 1065/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 September 2026AY 2017-188 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 dated July 28, 2022, for AY 2017-18 was approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nashik. It was noted that this fact was not disputed by the Revenue. As per Section 151(ii) of the Act, when more than three years have elapsed from the end of the assessment year, the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner is required. Since the approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner, it was not by the specified authority under Section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Holiday Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO and Alag Property Construction (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, which had quashed similar notices for AY 2017-18 where approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner. The Tribunal also noted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decisions had duly considered the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Rajiv Bansal. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax after a lapse of 3 years from the end of the assessment year, was bad in law and quashed. Consequently, the reassessment order was also held to be bad in law. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and the order of the Learned CIT(A) was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The appeal challenges the quashing of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated July 28, 2022, which was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act. The Assessing Officer's order was dated April 22, 2023. The Learned CIT(A) had quashed the notice under Section 148, holding it to be bad in law because the approval for its issuance was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, as required when more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. The addition of ₹1,35,25,050 made by the Assessing Officer was also deleted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in quashing the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated July 28, 2022, which was issued with prior approval as per the provisions of Section 151 of the Act. Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the case is covered under CBDT Instruction No. 01 of 2022 dated May 11, 2022. It also contended that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajiv Bansal dated October 3, 2024, is in favour of the department and that the Learned CIT(A) misinterpreted this judgment by treating AY 2017-18 as beyond three years. The Revenue sought to restore the Assessing Officer's order and the notice issued under Section 148.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 151,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Respondent: Shri Abhay Sadahiv Nannaware

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for AY 2017-18 on 15.01.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 22.04.2023. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : “i)

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in quashing the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 28/07/2022 issued with prior approval as per provisions of section 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961. ii)

On the facts and circumstances

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →