KAILASH MURLIDHAR PUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2), MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYAssessment Year: 2018-19
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 10.12.2024, 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. 2018-19. 2. Admittedly, the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022
has been issued after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, by getting sanction from the Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax – 1 Thane, but not from the Competent Authority as prescribed/empowered in section 151(ii) of the Act and therefore there is violation of the statutory provision, which would entail the notice dated 27.07.2022 and assessment
Mr. Kailash Murlidhar Purohit
2
order dated 15.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act passed in pursuance to aforesaid notice as without juri iction and/or unsustainable in the eyes of law, as held by various courts including by Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in the case of Vodafone India
Ltd. vs Dy. Commissioner of income tax, circle 5(2)(1) Mumbai &
ors. (writ petition No. 2768 of 2022 decided on 06.02.2024), wherein the identical notice u/s 148 of the Act as involved in the instant case has been treated as invalid and consequently quashed.
Thus, this Court, by respectfully following the dictum of Hon’ble
High Court, is inclined to quash the said notice u/s 148 of the Act along with assessment order under consideration and thus the same is quashed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.06.2025. (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Disha Raut, Stenographer
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
////
By Order
Dy/Asstt.