KAVITA SATISH SETHI,POWAI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41 1 2 MUMBAI , MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction to examine a question of law that arises from the facts found by the authorities below. The Tribunal observed that the notice issued under Section 148 was not sanctioned by the Pr. CCIT as mandated by Section 151, thus violating statutory provisions.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed by the NFAC. The assessee raised a legal issue regarding the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging it was not sanctioned by the specified authority as required by Section 151.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 and the notice issued under Section 148 are valid when the sanction from the specified authority (Pr. CCIT) as per Section 151 is not obtained.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 151,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- NTPC v. CIT70 citing97 Taxmann 358 · 1998 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.01.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.
The Assessee has raised the legal issue pertaining to the issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act not being sanctioned by the Specified Authority, as enshrined in section 151 of the Act and as applicable to the case of the Assessee, first time before this Court and therefore the Ld. DR has claimed that such issue cannot be allowed to be raised before the Tribunal first time, without being challenging the same before the authorities below.
Admittedly, the Assessee has not filed any application for raising this particular legal issue, however, it is the mandate of the law as enshrined/promulgated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 97 Taxman 358 (SC) to the effect “that Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine a question of law, which arises from the facts as found by the authorities below and having a bearing on the tax liability of the Assessee”. Thus, by considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, as the legal issue raised by the Assessee emanates from the orders passed by the Authorities below and goes to the root of the case, we are inclined to allow the Assessee to raise this legal issue for adjudication.
Coming to the legal ground raised by the Assessee qua issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act without getting sanction from Specified Authority, as empowered by section 151 of the Act, we observe that in this case, admittedly, the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act, after elapsing of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and by issuing notice dated 31.07.2022 taking approval from the Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai but not from the Pr. CCIT as mandated in section 151 of the Act and thus violated the statutory provisions enshrined in section 151 of the Act, which prescribes Specified authority for granting sanction for reopening of assessment proceedings and/ or issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thus, notice dated 31.07.2022 and the assessment order dated 18.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act passed in pursuance to the aforesaid notice, are liable to be quashed, thus, the same are quashed.
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.07.2025.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar… vs Tayal Sons Private Limited, HisarDelhi12 Feb 2026Allowed
The Tribunal held that based on the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16, would have to be dropped. The reassessm...
- Smt. Indubala Jayant Jain, Mumbai vs I.T.O Ward, 17(2)(1), MumbaiMumbai24 Nov 2025Allowed
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was by a non-jurisdictional officer and thus void ab initio. The assessment order passed pursuant to such a notice is bad in law. The AO also failed to dispose o...
- Viswanathan Krishnakumar, Aluva vs Income Tax Officer, AluvaCochin24 Nov 2025Allowed for statistical purpose
The Tribunal found the additional evidence (commission agreement, expense ledgers, Section 54F documents) to be crucial and going to the root of the matter, warranting verification. However, it deemed it unfeasible to co...
- Thumbprint Advertising Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward, 13(3)(1), MumbaiMumbai26 Aug 2025Allowed
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was based on a change of opinion by the Assessing Officer, which is not permissible under law. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue for AY 2015-16 was dropped by the ...
- Hyundai Transys Inc, Republic of Korea vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Chennai22 Jul 2024Allowed
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the amended Act. Consequently, all cons...
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
