AAMYA RESOURCES LLP,ANDHERI EAST vs. ITO, WARD 24(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In law and facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not following the ratio of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal 167 taxmann.com 70 and in confirming the action of the Ld. Ld.AO in reopening the assessment despite the approval / sanction for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act not having in consonance with the provisions of Sec. 151(ii) of the Act. 3. This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO in reopening the assessment despite the approval / sanction for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Not having in consonance with the provisions of Sec. 151(ii) of the Act . In this regard the assessee relied upon his written submissions, which is reproduced herein below: 8. It is undisputed that the notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29.07.2022, was issued to the LLP after obtaining approval from PCIT instead of PCCIT. The Notice under section 148 of the Act, is illegal, bad in law as it is issued 3 years after the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17,and deserves to be quashed. 9. The issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, consequent to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs Ashish Agarwal after obtaining approval from PCIT instead of from PCCIT is contrary to the provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act and the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Rajiv Bansal 301 Taxman 238 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46(SC)[03-10-2024]. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act, is liable to be quashed. (copy of judgement enclosed in paper book at page no. 1-42) 10. The case of the assessee did not get time-barred between the period 20th March 2020 to 31st March 2021 as the alleged escapement of income was more than Rs.50,00,000/- in view of which TOLA was not applicable.

Before proceeding further, it would be gainful to refer to the Provisions of section 151 of the Act, after the amendment in the act with effect from 1/4/2021 which reads as under- 151. (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year: (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year..." 12. Reference is invited to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Rajiv Bansal 301 Taxman 238 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46(SC) [03-10-2024] wherein in concluding para 114 of its judgment, the Supreme Court has held that- 114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that: a. After I April 2021, the Income Tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions; b. TOLA will continue to apply to the Income Tax Act after 1 April 2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act falls for completion between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021; c. Section 3(1) of TOLA overrides Section 149 of the Income Tax Act only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148: d. TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021. 13. In para 114(d) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra) has clarified that the TOLA will apply

After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under Section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of Ashish Agarwal (supra), after 1 April 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime. 76. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume juri iction under Section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the juri iction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, non-compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limits prescribed under Section 151 affects their juri iction to issue a notice under Section 148. 16. (i) Reference is also invited to Para 81 of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra) where in the Supreme Court has clarified that the assessing officer is required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority in accordance with section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 148(d) of the Act or issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. "81. This Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) directed the assessing officers to "pass orders in terms of Section 148A(d) in respect of each of the assesses concerned." Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime "after following the procedure as required under Section 148A." Although this Court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under Section 148A(a) and Section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for Section 148A(d) and Section 148. Therefore, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or 6 Aamya Resources LLP, Mumbai issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable." It is evident from perusal of the above relevant extracts from judgement of Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has clearly held that in cases where TOLA was not applicable as in the case of the assessee, the sanctioning authority as per the new regime under section 151(ii) of the Act, would be applicable and notices issued after obtaining sanction from an authority not in accordance with provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act, shall be void. (ii) ITO V. Pradeep Himatlal Shah [2025] 170 taxmann.com 472 (SC) (Copy of Judgement enclosed in paper Book at page no. 43-44) Where High Court held that since order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 were issued beyond a period of three years, sanction to pass order and issuance of notice was to be accorded by Principal Chief Commissioner as provided under section 151 (ii) and thus, sanction granted by Principal Commissioner was invalid, SLP against order of High Court was to be disposed of in terms of judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238 (SC). 17. Some of the ITAT decisions holding likewise- (i) [2025] 173 taxmann.com 182 (Mumbai - Trib.) (Copy of Judgement enclosed in paper Book at page no. 45-49) Where order under section 148A(d) was passed after expiry of 3 years from end of assessment year 2017-18, as per new regime, authority specified undersection 151 (ii) was required to grant approval. (ii) DCIT Vs. SS Jewellery [2025] 173 taxmann.com 189 (Mumbai Trib.) (Copy of Judgement enclosed in paper Book at page no. 50- 53) Where assessment was sought to be reopened after three years from end of relevant assessment year, approval of specified authority as per sub-clause(ii) of section 151 was required to be taken; approval granted by Principal Commissioner could not be termed as valid/legal approval.

On the other hand Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 5. We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that undisputedly the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.07.2022 to the assessee after obtaining approval from PCIT instated of PCCIT. Since the said notice was issued after 3 years of the end of the assessment year. Therefore, as per the provisions of Sec. 151(ii) of the Act the said notice was to be issued after obtaining from PCCIT. But in the present case, the said approval has been sought from PCIT instated of PCCIT, which is contrary to the provisions of Sec. 151(ii) of the Act. The copy of the said notice is at paper book page No. 4 to 5. The identical ground has already been decided and upheld by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, the details of which is reproduced herein below: 1. Union of India vs Rajiv Bansal 301 Taxman 238 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46(SC) [03- 10-2024] 2. ITO V. Pradeep Himatlal Shah [2025] 170 taxmann.com 472 (SC) 3. Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani Vs. ACIT [2025] 173 taxmann.com 182 (Mumbai - Trib.) 4. DCIT Vs. SS Jewellery [2025] 173 taxmann.com 189 (Mumbai - Trib.) 5. Aakruti Ketan Mehta Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, [[2025] 173 taxmann.com 265 (Mumbai - Trib.)

Cipla Pharma and Life Sciences Ltd. vs DCIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com 663 (Bombay) 7. Kusum Healthcare Private Limited W.P.(C) 383/2023 154/2023 on 04.03.2025 (Delhi) 9. Twylight Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 158 taxmann.com 378 (Delhi)/[2024] 463 ITR 702 (Delhi) [05-01-2024] 10. Abhinav Jindal (HUF) Vs. ITO [2024] 166 taxmann.com 536 (Delhi) 11. .Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [2025] 305 Taxman 387 (Delhi) [14-05-2025] 12. Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 (SC) 6. Therefore, considering the entire circumstances as well as legal prepositions discussed by us above and keeping in view the principles of ‘stare decisis’ we are also of the view that since in the present case the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued in contravention to Sec. 151(ii) of the Act, therefore the same is bad in law and thus stands quashed and consequently re-assessment proceedings based on this notice also stands quashed. 7. Since we have already quashed the reassessment proceedings the other grounds raised by the assessee are rendered merely academic and therefore we are not adjudicating upon the same. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.09.2025. (OM PRAKASH KANT) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. थ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु(अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सािपत ित ////

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.