← Back to search

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

PDF
ITA 1830/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 20253 pages

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKARAssessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ld. A.R.
For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R.
Hearing: 24.04.2025Pronounced: 27.05.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 17.01.2025, 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. Mr. Pandurang Ramsingh Gadhari

2
2. 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.
3. 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.
Mr. Pandurang Ramsingh Gadhari

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.05.2025. (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

* Kishore, Sr. P.S.

Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench

////

By Order

Dy/Asstt.

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