KAILASH MURLIDHAR PUROHIT ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 3(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 504/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 June 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 was issued in violation of statutory provisions, as the sanction was not obtained from the prescribed competent authority. Following the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court, the notice and the consequent assessment order were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order passed by the NFAC. The primary issue was a notice issued u/s 148 of the Act after 3 years, with sanction from an inappropriate authority, violating section 151(ii).

What were the issues?

Whether the notice u/s 148 of the Act was validly issued when the sanction for issuing the notice was not obtained from the prescribed competent authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151,Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr.D.R
Hearing: 11.06.2025Pronounced: 11.06.2025

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 order dated 15.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act passed in pursuance to aforesaid notice as without jurisdiction and/or unsustainable in the eyes of law, as held by various courts including by Hon’ble Jurisdictional 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.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11.06.2025.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →