SANCHIT KANTILAL GANORE,BHAGUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in passing the assessment under section 147 of the Act and issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, without complying with the various juri ictional preconditions and statutory safeguards under Income Tax Act, rendering the reassessment proceedings bad in law and liable to be quashed.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds, the learned Juri ictional Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the notice u/s 148 on 13-04-2022 which is beyond the period of 6 years as per section 149 because fifth proviso to section 148 cannot apply in a case where the first proviso applies and thus, as per the decision of Hon'ble juri ictional Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies - 464 ITR 430 and Godrej Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2024] 160 taxmann.com 13, the present notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law and thus, may please be quashed.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. Ld NFAC has erred in upholding the illegal order passed by the Ld. NaFAG since the Notice u/s 148 dated 13-04-2022 was issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer (ITO Ward 2. Pandharpur) and not by the NaFAC and hence, the assumption of juri iction by Ld. JAO u/s 148 is in violation of mandatory juri ictional conditions as stipulated in Notification No 18/2022 dated 29th March 2022, which has been upheld by Juri ictional Honble Bombay High Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd 464 ITR 430 as mandatory juri ictional

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the illegal order passed by the Ld. NaFAC since the Notice u/s 148 dated 29-07-2022 issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer (ITO Ward 1(1) Nashik) is without the Document Identification Number (DIN) which is in violation of Circular No. 19/2019 (F NO.225/95/2019-ITA.II), dated 14-8-2019, which has been held by Juri ictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. 464 ITR 430 as mandatory juri ictional pre-condition and therefore, the impugned reassessment proceedings and the consequential reassessment order may please be quashed.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act is bad in law inasmuch as there was no valid and proper sanction by the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act and hence the said order deserves to be quashed.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds the assessment order passed u/s 147 rws. 144 of the Act is bad in law inasmuch as there was no valid and proper sanction by the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act as sanction is accorded by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Nashik whereas since three years were elapsed as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal - 469 ITR 46, the sanction ought have been obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, which admittedly not obtained and hence, the said notice as well as consequential assessment order deserves to be quashed

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other Ground, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law since the learned Ld. AO [ITO Ward 1(1) Nashik] had no juri iction to reopen the case of the Appellant u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of the information received in the course of search on a third party viz. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-op Credit Society and hence, the consequential reassessment u/s 147 of the Act is null and void

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act is bad in law since there was no application of mind, by Ld. AO while issuing the notices u/s 148A(b) and passing order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 inasmuch as there is no independent verification of the information with facts already available on record to justify the formation of satisfaction that there is income suggesting escapement of income and hence, the entire proceedings are based on mechanical reproduction of information without due inquiry or examination of the facts specific to the Appellant's case, thereby rendering the initiation and conclusion of reassessment proceedings void ab initio

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to any other grounds. Ld. JAO did not comply with the law laid down by the decision of Honble Supreme court in case of Ashish Agrawal-444 ITR 1 and therefore, the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29-07-2022 as well as consequential impugned reassessment proceedings and the consequential reassessment order are liable to be quashed and set aside.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, Ld. NFAC has erred in passing a cryptic and non-speaking order upholding the additions of Rs 1,34,39,289 made by Ld. NaFAC by assigning same reasons that of NaFAC without independently appreciating the written submissions and documentary evidences filed by the Appellant in support of his claims and hence, the impugned order passed u/s 250 is bad in law

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs 99,82,881/-made under section 68 by Ld. NaFAC without appreciating the valid submission filed by the Appellant and ITA No.1767/PUN/2025 [A]

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the addition of Rs 33,60,000/-made under section 69A by Ld. NaFAC without appreciating the valid submission filed by the Appellant and hence, the same is bad in law and thus, the impugned addition may please be deleted.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds, Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the disallowance of deduction of Rs 96,408/- claimed under section 80C by Ld. NaFAC without appreciating the valid submission filed by the Appellant and hence, the same is bad in law and thus, the impugned addition may please be deleted.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground, Ld. NaFAC has erred in levying interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C and hence, the same may please be quashed.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to any other ground, Ld. NaFAC has erred in initiating penalty u/s 271AAC and 270A of the Act and hence, the same may please be quashed.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, or withdraw any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal, in the interest of justice.”

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. As per the Assessment Order, Assessee is a Trader, trading in sarees. Assessee filed Return of Income for A.Y.2017-18 on 28.10.2017 u/s.139(1) of the Act, declaring total income at Rs.8,20,450/-. A notice under section 148 of the Act, was issued to the Assessee. It is mentioned in the assessment order that notice u/s.148 was issued for the reason that Assessee has deposited cash of Rs.99,82,881/- in Renukamata Multistate Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Assessee filed an elaborate submission during the assessment proceedings including copy of bank statements, copy of profit and loss account etc.

Ld.Assessing Officer rejected assessee’s explanation stating that Assessee has failed to furnish date-wise sales register, stock register and copy of GST Return for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. 4. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s.147 determining the total income at Rs.1,42,59,739/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) upheld

1 Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), Assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal.

2 Assessee has taken various legal grounds. Ld.AR invited our attention to notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 29.07.2022 which is at page no.10 to 11 of the paper book. It is observed that the said notice was approved by ld.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, Nashik. It is also observed that the said notice does not have any ITA No.1767/PUN/2025 [A]

3 Section 151 of the I.T.Act is reproduced here as under : [Sanction for issue of notice.

Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be,—

In this case, it is an admitted fact that more than three years have lapsed from the end of the Assessment Year. Therefore, as per Section 151 of the Act, the Competent Authority to approve the notice u/s.148 and order u/s.148A(d) of the Act, is the ld.Principal Chief Commissioner of Income or ld.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. However, in this case, notice has been approved by ld.Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.

In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason to just grant Rule and keep the matter pending.

As held in Siemens (Supra), the order passed under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 of the Act both are quashed and set aside.” Unquote.

In the circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.), the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 22nd April 2022 under sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside.”

ITAT Pune in the case of Hareshkumar Dungarmal Jain vs. DCIT in ITA No.1933/PUN/2024, quashed the Notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 13.04.2022 for A.Y.2018-19. 7. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Core Logistic 05.06.2025 has held as under :

1 Thus, in this case notice u/s.148 dated 29.07.2022 was approved by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the order u/s.148A(d) was approved by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nashik for A.Y.2017-18, which is after the lapse of three years from the end of Assessment Year. Therefore, as per section 151, the Authority to approve is Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus, Section 151

Since we have adjudicated the Ground No.6 and 7 in favour of Assessee, we do not intend to adjudicate the remaining grounds of appeal. Accordingly, all other grounds are left open.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19 September, 2025. VINAY BHAMORE

गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER,