RADHIKA RISHIKESH SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(2)(4), MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

ITA 8370/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 October 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the operative notice under section 148 dated 14.07.2022 was issued well beyond three years from the end of assessment year 2017-18. The alleged income escaping assessment was Rs.9,28,750/-, which is substantially below the Rs.50,00,000/- threshold prescribed under section 149(1)(b). The Tribunal found that this failure to satisfy the jurisdictional condition under section 149(1)(b) for issuing a notice beyond three years renders the reassessment proceedings without jurisdiction, as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ruhaan Shelters (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer. Additionally, the approval for the notice was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-17, Mumbai. However, for a notice issued beyond the three-year period, the authority contemplated under section 151(ii), i.e., the Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent, was required to grant approval, as per the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decisions in Alag Property Construction(P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, Skypak Travels (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, and Anil Gupta (P.) Family Trust v. Income-tax Officer. This also constitutes a jurisdictional defect. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order, as well as the CIT(A)'s order, were set aside as being without jurisdiction. Other grounds raised by the assessee were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Radhika Rishikesh Sawant, is in appeal against the order dated 03.07.2026 of the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer had made a reassessment under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B, adding Rs.9,28,750/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). This addition represented 50% of the difference between the consideration paid for a jointly purchased property (Rs.71,50,000/-) and its stamp duty value (Rs.90,07,500/-). The reassessment was initiated based on information about the property purchase. The original notice under section 148 was issued on 14.06.2021. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Ashish Agarwal, reassessment proceedings continued under substituted provisions, with a notice under section 148 issued on 14.07.2022. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice under section 148 dated 14.07.2022, issued beyond three years from the end of assessment year 2017-18, is valid, considering the alleged escaped income of Rs.9,28,750/- is below the Rs.50,00,000/- threshold stipulated in section 149(1)(b)? 2. Whether the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-17, Mumbai, for issuing the notice under section 148 beyond three years, satisfies the requirement of section 151(ii)? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the notice under section 148 dated 14.07.2022 was issued beyond three years, and the escaped income of Rs.9,28,750/- was below the Rs.50,00,000/- threshold under section 149(1)(b). Furthermore, for notices issued beyond three years, approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority under section 151(ii), not the Principal Commissioner. The assessee relied on judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, including Ruhaan Shelters (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Alag Property Construction(P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, Skypak Travels (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, and Anil Gupta (P.) Family Trust v. Income-tax Officer. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii),Section 148,Section 149(1)(b),Section 151,Section 151(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI G. M. DOSS

For Respondent: Mr. Praveen Salunkhe, Sr.AR
Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER G.M. DOSS, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18, whereby the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was upheld. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.9,28,750/- under section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act, being 50 per cen

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 →