SUNITA RAMESH DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(3)(6) , MUMBAI

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding reassessment proceedings contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC).

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding reassessment proceedings although the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not contain a valid DIN.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” Sunita Ramesh Dhanani 2

Rival submissions of both the parties have heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that in the present appeal the assessee has only challenged the validity reopening and notice under section 148. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that case of assessee for AY 2017-18 was reopened beyond the three years from the end of relevant assessment year. As per the amended provisions after amendment by Finance Act 2021, applicable w.e.f. 0104.2021 if the case is reopening is beyond three years from the end of relevant assessment year, the approval of reasons recorded should be approved by Principal Chief Commissioner of Income tax (Pr CCIT) or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. However, the assessing officer obtained approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr CIT), who was not a competent sanctioning authority as per section 151(ii) of amended provision. The assessing officer was required to obtain approval / sanction from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CCIT). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that copy of notice under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 is placed on record at page no. 24 & 25 of paper book, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the said notice is issued after obtaining prior approval of Pr. CIT – 20, Mumbai on 27.07.2022. The assessing officer was required to obtain sanction/approval from Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that though he has raised issue against non-mentioning Document Identification Number (DIN) of notice under section 148, however, he is pressing such ground of appeal at this stage. Sunita Ramesh Dhanani 3

On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue after going through the copy of notice under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 and other material on record submits that he supports the orders of lower authorities. 4. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I have also deliberated on various material placed before me and the case laws relied by ld. AR of the assessee. On perusals of record, I find that case of assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 dated 27.07.2022. Admittedly the case of assessee for AY 2027-18 is reopened after elapsing three years from the end of relevant assessment years. The assessing officer obtained the approval/sanction from Pr. CIT as mentioned in the notice itself. However, after amendment by way of Finance Act, 2021, as per new regime if the case of assessee is reopened beyond three years from the end of relevant assessment year, the approval of Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General is required. Admittedly, the assessing officer has obtained from Pr. CIT – 20 on 23.07.2022 who is not competent, therefore, notice under section 148 is invalid. Once notice is invalid, therefore, subsequent action initiated on such invalid notice is void ab initio. Thus, the assessee succeed on primary submission of ld. AR of the assessee. Considering the fact that assessee has succeeded on primary submission of ld. AR of the assessee, therefore, adjudication of other issued and on merit has become academic. In the result, ground of appeal of assessee is allowed. Sunita Ramesh Dhanani 4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in the open Court on24 /07/2025. PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER