NITESHSINGH SOHANSINGH PARIHAR,GONDIA, MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WARD - 1, GONDIA, GONDIA, MAHARASHTRA

ITA 656/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 October 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal, which raised legal issues regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings, notice under section 148, and approval under section 151. The Tribunal acknowledged that these legal issues could be raised at any stage, citing the Supreme Court judgment in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT. However, considering the Delhi High Court's ruling in Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT, which held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide grounds not arising from the impugned order of the first appellate authority, the Tribunal restored all the legal issues raised in the additional grounds of appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Consequently, the grounds of appeal on merits were also restored to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Niteshsingh Sohansingh Parihar, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 15.05.2026, which arose from an assessment order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 30,95,318/- for unexplained cash credits. The assessee, at the outset, sought to raise additional grounds of appeal concerning the validity of the reassessment proceedings, specifically challenging the notice issued under section 148 and the approval obtained under section 151. The revenue supported the order of the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether the AO was justified in issuing a notice under section 148 dated 31 April 2022 (signed 1 April 2022) for AY 2018-19, when more than 3 years had elapsed from the end of the AY, and whether the approval under section 151 was obtained correctly under section 151(i) and not 151(ii). 2. Whether the AO was justified in making additions on issues other than those based on which the case was reopened, especially when no addition was made on account of the original information, citing the judgment in CIT-5, Mumbai v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 3. Whether the AO was justified in obtaining approval from the specified authority based on incorrect information, rendering the approval mechanical and without independent inquiry. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to improper notice under section 148 and incorrect approval under section 151. They also contended that additions should not be made on issues other than those forming the basis of reopening, referencing the Jet Airways case. Revenue's contentions: The learned DR supported the order of the CIT(A). No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue on the additional grounds.

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 SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Shiv Shankar Yadav, Sr.DR
Hearing: 13/10/2026Pronounced: 16/10/2026

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”) dated 15.05.2026 passed u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dated 06.03.2023 passed u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee requested for admission of additional grounds of appeal raising legal issues challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings on the ground of validity of notice issued u/sec. 148 of the Act are improper approval u/sec.151. He, however, fairly admitted that these legal issues are raised before this Tribunal for the first time. On merits, grievance is against the addition for unexplained cash cr

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 →