ACIT IN CHARGE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER -22(2)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG vs. PANDURANG RAMSINGH GADHARI , LOKVATIKA KALYAN EAST

Admittedly, in the instant case, the income escaping assessment does not exceed the prescribed limit of Rs.50 lakhs and therefore after elapsing of three years from the end of relevant assessment year, no notice u/s 148 of the Act could have been issued for reopening of the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act.

Further, after elapsing of three years from the end of relevant assessment year, the sanction as per the provision of section 151 (ii) of the Act, could have been taken from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General only, but not from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, as has taken in this case and therefore on both the provisions of section 149 & 151 of the Act, have been contravened by the Assessing Officer, while reopening the assessment of the Assessee and therefore the decision of the Ld. Commissioner in declaring the notice u/s 148 of the Act as bad in law, does not require any interference, as the decision of the Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order dated 17.01.2025 neither suffers from any perversity nor impropriatory, as the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. SS Jewellery (2025) 173 taxmann.com 189 (Mum-Trib.) has also dealt with the identical issue and ultimately quashed the reopening of the proceedings and/or notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and the assessment order made u/s 147 of the Act, in pursuance to such notice u/s 148 of the Act.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.