ITO-42(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINA DHIREN GADOYA, KANDIVALI WEST

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4816/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 October 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice dated 09.04.2022 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19, was unsustainable in law. The Tribunal noted that the notice was issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and that the sanction for its issuance was obtained from the Ld. PCIT, Mumbai-17, which is not the specified authority under section 151(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not dispute these factual assertions. Citing the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Skypak Travels Private Limited v. ITO & Ors., the Tribunal concluded that the notice and the consequential assessment order passed in pursuance thereof were liable to be quashed. Consequently, the issues on merits were rendered academic and did not require adjudication. The Assessee's Cross Objection was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by ITO 42(1)(2), filed an appeal against an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.02.2026, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee, Hina Dhiren Gadoya, filed a Cross Objection. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made an addition of Rs. 1,17,92,200/- under section 69C for alleged bogus purchases. The NFAC had restored the matter to the AO for verification and recomputation. The Assessee challenged the reopening proceedings, specifically the notice under section 148 dated 09.04.2022, arguing it was issued after three years from the end of the assessment year and that sanction was obtained from an incorrect authority under section 151(ii). The Revenue did not dispute these facts.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 09.04.2022 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19, is valid, considering it was issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and the sanction for issuance was obtained from an authority not prescribed under section 151(ii) of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The Assessee argued that the notice under section 148 was invalid because it was issued beyond the three-year period from the end of the assessment year and the sanction for its issuance was obtained from the Ld. PCIT, Mumbai-17, instead of the specified authority under section 151(ii). The Assessee relied on the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Skypak Travels Private Limited v. ITO & Ors. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not dispute the factual position presented by the Assessee regarding the issuance of the notice and the sanction obtained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 148,Section 151(ii),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Adv. Ld. AR
For Respondent: Smt. Sujatha Iyyanger, SR DR
Pronounced: 05.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4816/M/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 ITO 42(1)(2), Hina Dhiren Gadoya, 7, 4 Kautilya Bhawan, A-17, Vimal Nagar S V Road, BKC, Mumbai, Vs. Opposite Majethia Nagar, Maharashtra - 400051 Kandivali West, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400067 PAN – AOKPG3311E (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी /Respondent)

CO No. 336/M/2026 (Arising out of ITA 4816/M/2026) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hina Dhiren Gadoya, ITO 42(1)(2), A-17, Vimal Nagar S V Road, 7, 4 Kautilya Bhawan, Opposite Majethia Nagar, Vs. BKC, Mumbai, Kandivali West, Maharashtra - 400051 Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400067 PAN – AOKPG3311E (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी /Respondent) Present for: Assessee represented by: Sh. Ajay Singh, Adv. Ld. AR Revenue represented by: Smt. Sujatha Iyyanger, SR DR

Date of conclusion of hearing: 24.09.2026 Date of pronouncement: 05.10.2026

O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member

The instant appeal and Cross Objection have been preferred by the REVENUE and the ASSESSEE, respectively, against the order dated 18.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short, “Ld. Commissioner”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) for A.Y. 2018-19.

2 ITA No. 4816/M/2026 and CO No. 336/M/2026 Hina Dhiren Gadoya 2. The Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 23.02.2024 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, made an addition of Rs.1,17,92,200/- under section 69C on account of alleged bogus purchases. The Ld. Commissioner restored the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for verification and recomputation/restriction of the addition. Thus, the Revenue and the Assessee have preferred the present appeal and Cross Objection, respectively.

3.

Having heard the parties, perused the material available on record and considered the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee, we observe that the Assessee has raised a jurisdictional challenge to the reopening proceedings on the ground that the notice dated 09.04.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act, pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19, was issued after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, on the basis of sanction obtained from the Ld. PCIT, Mumbai-17, instead of the specified authority prescribed under section 151(ii) of the Act. The Ld. DR did not dispute the factual position. Considering the aforesaid undisputed facts, the notice dated 09.04.2022 issued under section 148 and the assessment order dated 23.02.2024 passed in pursuance thereof are unsustainable in law, in view of the relevant provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act and the dictum laid down recently by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Skypak Travels Private Limited v. ITO & Ors., W.P. No.5456 of 2024, decided on 24.04.2026. Accordingly, the aforesaid notice and the consequential assessment order are hereby quashed.

4.

Consequently, the issues on merits have become academic and require no adjudication.

3 ITA No. 4816/M/2026 and CO No. 336/M/2026 Hina Dhiren Gadoya 5. In the result, the Assessee’s Cross Objection is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (ANKIT, PS) Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order ABHINAV ANANT Digitally signed by ABHINAV ANANT GAVANDE GAVANDE Date: 2026.10.14 11:36:54 +05'30' Dy/Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →