VIMALKUMAR PUKRAJ JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE

ITA 1016/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 October 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated for Assessment Year 2017-18 were invalid. The notices under sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were issued on 26.07.2022, which is more than three years after the end of the assessment year. As per Section 151 of the Act, for issuing notices under Section 148 after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is mandatory. In this case, the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik, which is not the competent authority for cases beyond three years. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Coordinate Bench in Siddharth Raikumar Nahar Vs. DCIT, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Agnello Oswin Dias Vs. ACIT and Holiday Developers (P.) Ltd, Vs. ITO, and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Core Logistic Company vs. ACIT. The Tribunal found that the approval obtained was not proper, rendering the notice under section 148A(d) invalid. Consequently, the subsequent assessment proceedings were held to be null and void and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal quashed the consequential reassessment proceedings and set aside the impugned order. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee was allowed. The remaining grounds were considered academic.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vimalkumar Pukraj Jain, filed an appeal against the order dated 05.02.2026 of the NFAC, Delhi, which stemmed from an assessment order dated 10.05.2023 passed under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuing notices under sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Act on 26.07.2022. The assessee contended that these notices were issued after three years from the end of the assessment year and that the approval for their issuance was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik, instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, as mandated by Section 151 of the Act for cases beyond three years. The amount of alleged escaped income was Rs. 6,27,365/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated for Assessment Year 2017-18 are valid, considering that the notices under sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were issued after more than three years from the end of the assessment year, and the approval for issuance was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, as required by Section 151 of the Act? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the reassessment proceedings are invalid because the approval for issuing notices under sections 148A(d) and 148 was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik, who lacked the authority to grant such approval for cases where more than three years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year. According to Section 151 of the Act, approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is mandatory in such circumstances. Therefore, the Assessing Officer failed to assume proper jurisdiction. Revenue's contention: The Departmental Representative supported the order of the learned CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mutha, CA
For Respondent: Dr. Amit Munde
Hearing: 25.08.2026Pronounced: 06.10.2026

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 05.02.2026 of ld.NFAC, Delhi emanating out of Assessment Order dated 10.05.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal, I will first deal with the legal issue challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings on the ground that the same has been initiated without taking valid approval as mandated u/s.151 of the Act.

3.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that for the impugned A.Y. 2017-18 notices u/s.148A(d) and u/s.148 of the Act have been issued on 26.07.2022, i.e. after three

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 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →