FARHAT SUHAIL SAYED MANSOORI ,BANDRA (W) vs. DCIT-23(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5766/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2026AY 2010-117 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was purely a legal ground concerning the jurisdiction and validity of the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that the assessment for AY 2010-11 was reopened beyond four years by a notice under Section 148 dated 31.07.2017, issued by an ITO below the rank of Joint Commissioner. As per Section 151(2) of the Act (relevant for the assessment year), such a notice issued after four years requires the satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. The notice issued did not specifically mention from which higher authority the approval was obtained, nor was a copy of the sanction provided to the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer did not provide a copy of the sanction/approval granted by the Joint Commissioner for the issuance of the notice. Since the Assessing Officer did not provide a copy of the approval from the specified authority, or specifically mention it in the notice, the notice issued under Section 148 was held to be bad in law. Consequently, the assessment framed based on such an invalid notice was also held to be bad in law. The reassessment order was quashed, and the additional ground raised by the assessee was allowed. No other issue was decided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Farhat Suhail Sayed Mansoori, filed an appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, dated 22.07.2025, for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee raised an additional ground challenging the reopening of the assessment. The assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer (ITO, Ward-23(1)(4), Mumbai) through a notice under Section 148 dated 31.07.2017, which was beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The assessee contended that the notice was invalid as the required sanction under Section 151(2) of the Income Tax Act was not obtained from the specified authority, or at least not provided to the assessee. The Assessing Officer had indicated that approval was granted by the Additional Commissioner/Commissioner of Income Tax/Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, but the specific authority and date of approval were not mentioned in the notice, nor was a copy provided to the assessee despite requests.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(1)(4), Mumbai, is invalid and bad in law in view of CBDT Instructions No. 1 of 2011 read with Instruction No. 6 of 2011, and the procedural requirements of Section 151 of the Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148, which was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, was obtained under the correct sub-section of Section 151 of the Act, and if not, is the assessment framed based on such notice bad in law? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: The assessment is bad in law because the notice under Section 148 was issued without the prior approval of the "specified authority" as required by Section 151(2). The notice was issued beyond four years, and the sanction was obtained under Section 151(1) instead of Section 151(2), thus breaching Section 151. The Assessing Officer failed to provide the approval obtained under Section 151(2) despite requests, making the notice and subsequent assessment invalid. The assessee relied on CBDT Instructions No. 1 of 2011 and 6 of 2011. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151,Section 151(1),Section 151(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

Pronounced: 29/09/2026

PER SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, [“Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 22.07.2025, for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee by way of additional ground has challenged the reopening of the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as bad in law as under:

“Additional ground of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(1)(4), Mumbai is invalid and bad in law in view of the CBDT Instruction No.1 of 2011 read with Instruction No. 6 of 2011 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O erred on facts and in law, where the permission/ sanction for issuing of the notice had to be obtained under Section 151(2) of the Act while the sanction in this case has been obtained u/s 151(1) of the act. Thus, in breach of the Section 151 of the Act. Therefore, without jurisdiction.” 3. On hearing both sides, we admit the additional ground since it is purely a legal ground and going to very jurisdiction of validity of assessment order passed.

4.

Referring to Additional Ground, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment framed by the assessing officer is bad in law for the reason that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was without the prior approval of the “specified authority” as provided in section 151(2) of the Act.

5.

Learned counsel for the assessee, referring to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 31.07.20217 submitted that the notice was issued for reopening the assessment for assessment year 2010-11 beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, as per the provisions of section 151(2), the Assessing Officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax after the expiry of four years relevant to assessment year unless the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. Therefore, Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee vide letters dated 07.04.2017 and 13.10.2025 requested the Assessing Officer to provide the approval taken under section 151(2) of the Act since the notice did not specify from which authority the sanction has been obtained for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. Therefore Ld. Counsel submitted that in the absence of sanction by the Specified Authority for issuance of notice for reopening of assessment the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law and consequently the assessment framed based on such notice is also bad in law.

6.

Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Undisputedly, the assessment for A.Y. 2010- 11 was reopened beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.07.2017. Perusal of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act shows that the said notice was issued by ITO, Ward- 23(1)(4), Mumbai and an approval was said to have been granted by the Additional Commissioner/ Commissioner of Income Tax / Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for reopening the assessment. It appears that assessee also filed a letter dated 17.04.2017 before the Assessing Officer It appears that the assessee also filed a letter dated 17.04.2017 before the Assessing Officer requesting a copy of the approval sought from the higher authorities prior to issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. It was the contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer never provided any sanction granted u/s. 151 of the Act for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act by the Assessing Officer, who is in the rank of ITO. The provisions of section 152(1) and section 152(2), which are relevant for the assessment year under consideration, read as under:

“151. Sanction for issue of notice.—(1) In a case where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice:

Provided that, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2) In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the Joint Commissioner, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself.” 7. In the case of the assessee, sub section (2) of section 152 of the Act provides that, in this case, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act shall be issued by an Assessing Officer who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for issuance of such notice. The Assessing Officer did not provide a copy of the sanction / approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for the issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. We also observed from the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act that the Assessing Officer did not specifically mention 5 from which higher authority he had obtained the approval for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the date of such approval. Since the Assessing Officer did not provide a copy either to the assessee or specifically mentioned in the notice u/s. 148 of the Act about the approval obtained from the specified authority, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and consequently the assessment framed based on such notice is also bad in law. Thus, we quash the reassessment order framed based on such invalid notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/09/2026

Sd/- Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 29/09/2026 Prabhat Copy to: FARHAT SUHAIL SAYED MANSOORI 1 HONEY COMB APARTMENTS, 99/100 ROAD, ALDMEIDA PARK 1 BANDRA (W) MUMBAI - 400051

DCIT-23(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, JIJAMATA NAGAR, LALBAUG, PAREL, 2 MUMBAI – 400012 MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →