SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1263/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17
Ward-1(3),
Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFJPA6435R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &
Sh. Rohan Chatter, Adv.
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 27/10/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 19/11/2025

vkns'k@ ORDER

PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.
CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated
31.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in initiating re-assessment

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
2
proceeding u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and same is void ab initio and deserves to be quashed.

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
3
by issuing notice under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 08.04.2021
to the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed his return of income on 21.05.2021 declaring his total income for the year under consideration at Rs. 9,17,230/-. Thereafter, in compliance to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decision dated 04.05.2022 in the case of UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal and consequent CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022/F. No. 279/Misc./M-
51/2022-ITJ dated 11.05.2022, a letter with information and material relied upon for initiating reassessment proceedings was provided to the assessee vide DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1043252147(1) DATED
30.05.2022 wherein the assessee was given a show-cause as to why the total transaction amount of Rs. 81,84,838/- shall not be treated as income chargeable to tax which has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provision of section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2016-17. In compliance to the said show-cause, the reply furnished by the assessee on 11.06.2022 has been reproduced in the order under section 148A(d) dated
26.07.2022, are as under :
“ I had purchased shares of M/s. Appu Marketing and Manufacturing
Limited/Ejecta Marketing Limited (Listed in Bombay Stock Exchange),
Script code 538653 and declared long term capital gain of Rs. 80,46,677/- which was exempted u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 which had already been declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 filed on 22.07.2016. All the payments were made and received through account payee cheques drawn by the concerned Stock Broker of Bombay Stock Exchange and duly

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
4
recorded in the bank accounts. That an amount invested in “penny” stocks gave rise to huge capital gains/loss in a short period does not mean that the transaction is “bogus” if the documentation and evidences cannot be faulted.
Such penny stocks are allowed to trade in the Bombay Stock Exchange
(BSE). That I fulfilled all the condition u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act,
1961. Moreover, I have erned the income strictly following the norms and guidelines of SEBI. I was not at all in a position to influence the purchase and sale prices of their shares. That the material/information provided by you has nothing adverse evidence to the axiomatic conclusion drawn by you that I had entered into an agreement with the broker or any other person to convert unaccounted money by claiming fictitious LTCG which is exempt u/s 10(38) in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes.
That your goodself has not provided all the material i.e. attachments to case related information detail from insight portal on which you relied upon as directed in para 8(i) of the order dt.4th May, 2022 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal
(Civil Appeal No. 3005 of 2022 [reported as (2022) 326 CTR (SC) 473;
(2022) 213 DTR (SC) 217].
Your goodself is also requested to provide relevant portion of statement(s) in which entry providers had taken my and/or our share broker i.e. Hem
Securities Ltd. name in wrong doings so that we can file meaningful further our reply.

The assessee, further, in reply to AO letter dated 23.06.2022, submitted reply through e-proceedings dated 27.06.2022 that “That your goodself has not provided all the material i.e. attachments to case related information detail from insight portal on which you relied upon as directed in para 8(i) of the order dt. 4th May, 2022 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agarwal

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
5
(Civil Appeal No. 3005 of 2022 [reported as (2022) 326 CTR (SC) 473;
(2022) 213 DTR (SC) 217]”. The AO considered the reply furnished by the assessee as well as objection raised but could not found it tenable.
Accordingly, the AO passed order under section 148A(d) concluding that on the basis of material available on record, the case of the assessee is a fit case for issuance of notice under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 for the AY 2016-17. Consequently, notice dated 26.07.2022 under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur accorded on 23.07.2022. Thereafter, notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) and Show Cause Notice were issued on various dates. In compliance to the above notices, the assessee furnished ledger, bank statement, demat account on 10.02.2023 and 15.02.2023. The assessee further filed letter along with Contract Note and DP holding statement on 11.05.2023. All the replies submitted by the assessee have been considered by the AO but could not found the same acceptable. Hence, Long Term Capital Gains of Rs. 81,84,838/- claimed by the assessee from sale of the stock of Goenka
Business and Finance Limited and Ejecta Marketing Ltd. has been disallowed treating the same as assessee’s own unaccounted income in the guise of bogus LTCG. The AO accordingly assessed the total income

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
6
of the assessee at Rs. 91,02,068/- under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s.
144B of the IT Act, 1961 by making addition of Rs. 81,84,838/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 on account of unexplained money, vide his order dated 29.05.2023. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A).
The ld. CIT (A) after discussing the matter, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that “ In view of failure on part of appellant to discharge burden of proof and explain nature and source of transaction, in my opinion, learned assessing officer has rightly made addition in dispute, which does not require any interference. Hence, action of AO in treating entire sale consideration of scrip of M/s. AAML/EML as unexplained cash credit within meaning of section 69A of Act is in order and needs no modification. Accordingly, order of Assessing Officer is hereby upheld and addition of Rs. 81,84,838/- is confirmed.”

Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us on the grounds reproduced hereinabove.
4. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made before the lower authorities. The ld. AR further submitted his written submissions, in support of his case, which are being reproduced hereunder :-

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
7

“GROUND NO.1 :Proceeding initiated u/s 147/148 of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 is void ab initio and deserves to be quashed.

iii. Sanction of the specified authority
73. Section 151 imposes a check upon the power of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtains the sanction of the specified authority before issuing a notice under Section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assesses from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments.128 A table representing the prescription under the old and new regime is set out below:

Regime
Time limits
Specified authority
Section 151(2) of the old regime
Before expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year
Joint Commissioner
Section 151(1) of the old regime
After expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year
Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal
Commissioner or Commissioner
Section 151(i) of the new regime
Three years or less than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year
Principal
Commissioner or Principal
Director or Commissioner or Director
Section 151(ii) of the new regime
More than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year
Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director
General

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
8
(i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under Section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint
Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal
Commissioner or Commissioner.

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
10
e. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March
2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) has extended time till 31
March 2021 to grant approval.

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - no appropriate prior approval/sanction mandated u/s 151 - order passed beyond three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year
Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume juri iction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. In the present case the period of three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17 fell for completion on 31st March 2020. Since the expiry date fell during the time period of 20th March 2020 and 31st
March 2021 contemplated under Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws
(Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (for short
“TOLA”), the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime could have granted sanction till 30th June 2021. On perusal of the order, dated 13.07.2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, we find that the aforesaid order was passed after taking approval from Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 2). Since the aforesaid order was passed after the expiry of three years from the end of the Assessment
Year 2016-17, as per the substituted provisions of re-assessment, the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the Act (i.e. Principal Chief
Commissioner or Chief Commissioner) was required to grant approval.
Accordingly, we conclude that in the present case the approval has been obtained from the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime instead of the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the new regime.
Thus, accordingly hold that the order dated 13.07.2022 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice issued under section 148 are bad in law for being violative of the provisions of Section 151(ii) of the Act. Hence they are required to be quashed and set aside. Assessee appeal allowed.

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
11
years from the end of the relevant assessment year or thereafter. The impugned notice is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Assessee appeal allowed.

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
12
Bansal’s case [2024 (10) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] it transpires that though prior approval u/s 148A(b) and 148(d) was waived in terms of decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal case, for issuance of notice u/s 148A(a) and 148 on or after 1-04-2021, prior approval was required to be obtained from the appropriate authority specified u/s 151 of the New Regime.

As per report from the AO, the assessee was issued notice under section 148
of the Act after obtaining sanction under section 151 from the JCIT, Range-4,
Jaipur; that subsequently, an opportunity of being heard as per provisions of section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee with prior approval from the competent authority vide DIN and Notice dated
25.5.2022. In said report, the Assessing Officer has further reported that the competent authority for approving the proposal order u/s 148A(d) was Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur.
In this way, the Assessing Officer has admitted the case of the assessee that for the relevant Assessment Year 2016-17, Pr. CIT-2 Jaipur was the competent authority for the purposes of sanction under section 151 of the Act.
Copy of approval for passing order under section 148A(d), dated
22/25.7.2022, as per directions of Hon’ble Apex Court would reveal that said order was passed with the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income tax-2, Jaipur. This fact also finds mention in Order under section 148A(d) of the Act issued on 27.7.2022. Thus, we hold that the notice under section 148 of the Act is invalid in the eye of law. Decided in favour of assessee.

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
13
Hyderabad dated 27.07.2022 and consequential final assessment order dated
02.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Act is illegal, void ab initio and thus, we quash the final assessment order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer. Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
15
(TOLA) would apply. Accordingly, the amended provisions under the Act read with TOLA extended the time limit for granting of approval till
30.06.2021 by the specified authority.
Thus, in the present case, since the notice u/s. 148 and order u/s. 148A(b) have been issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year, case of the assessee falls within the provisions of section 151(ii) of the amended law whereby the specified authority for grant of approval is specified as Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal
Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. Contrary to this requirement, the approval obtained is by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai. Accordingly, since a proper sanction by the specified authority had not been obtained for issue of notice u/s.148 under the applicable provisions of law, said notice is invalid and bad in law.
Referring to judicial precedent in the case of Ashish Agarwal [2022 (5) TMI
240 - SUPREME COURT] and Rajiv Bansal [2024 (10) TMI 264 -
SUPREME COURT (LB)] we hold that sanction by specified authority has not been obtained by the Assessing Officer in accordance with the provisions contained in section 151 of the Act under the new regime, since notice u/s.148
has been issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant Assessment
Year. Accordingly, the said notice issued is invalid and thus quashed.
Decided in favour of assessee.

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
16
Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General. However, as the A.O. had obtained the approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, i.e. an authority who was not vested with any juri iction as per the mandate of Section 151 of the Act (as made available on the statute w.e.f 01.04.2021), therefore, the assessment so framed by him u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 11.05.2023
being devoid and bereft of valid assumption of juri iction is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the assessment framed by the A.O u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 11.05.2023 in terms of our aforesaid observations.

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
17
the prior approval should be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime. The provisions of section 151
of the Act under the new regime read as under: Sanction for issue of notice.
151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be, —(i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year;
(ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General,
Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Therefore we see merit in the contention of the assessee that the notice under section 148 for AY 2016-17 is issued without obtaining the prior approval from the appropriate authority. Accordingly we hold that the notice under section 148 is invalid and the consequent assessment under section 147 is liable to be quashed.”

The impugned notice dated 26.07.2022 issued under section 148 for AY 2016-
2017 was issued without taking the appropriate sanction as mandated u/s. 151(ii) of the Act. Multiple Hon’ble High Courts & Hon’ble ITAT have quashed materially identical notices. On these facts and authorities, the impugned notice is void for want of juri iction and must be quashed & set-aside.

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
18
GROUND NO. 3 and 4 [Rejecting Long Term Capital Gain earned from sale of shares amounting Rs 81,84,838/- claimed by the assessee appellant as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and addition of Rs. 49,552/- on account of commission]
Since the initiation of reassessment proceedings initiated vide impugned notice dated
26.07.2022 is itself void-ab-initio and being beyond juri iction, entire reassessment proceedings is liable to be set-aside & quashed and hence consequential illegal additions of Rs. 81,84,838/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer is liable to be deleted.
Without prejudice, the appellant reserves the right to submit detailed submissions on merits at an appropriate stage if necessary.
SUMMARY

The impugned notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act dated 26.07.2022 for A.Y. 2016-2017
is bad in law in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev
Bansal (supra) for the reason of Sanction not obtained from PCCIT u/s. 151(ii) of the Act.
PRAYER

In view of the above facts, statutory provisions, and judicial precedents, it is most respectfully prayed that:

The ld. AR further filed the Paper Book in support of his case as under :-
PAPER BOOK
S.No.
Particular
Page No.
From To 1. Written Submission.
01
12
2. Copy of Notice dated 08.04.2021 issued u/s 148 of the Act.
13
13
3. Copy of Order dated 26.07.2022 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act.
14
19
4. Copy of Notice dated 26.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act.
20
22
5. Ramesh Bachulal Mehta v. ITO
[2025] 8 TMI 1322. (Hon’bleBombay High Court)
23
29
6. H AND M HENNES AND MAURITZ RETAIL Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2025] 5
TMI 1799 (Hon’ble Delhi High Court)
30
34
7. Core Logistic Company v. ACIT
[W.P. No. 18168/2023] (Hon’ble Madras High Court.)
35
46
8. Late Shri Jitendra Nagar v. ITO
[ITA 1382/JPR/2024] (Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur)
47
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
19
5. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

It will be expedient to examine the argument of the ld. A/R that the order under section 148A(d) and notice under section148 were issued without sanction of proper authority. We have gone through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal, 469 ITR 46 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Court opined in para no. 81 as under :-
“81. This Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) directed the assessing officers to “pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assesses concerned.” Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under section 148 of the new regime “after following the procedure as required under Section 148-A.” Although this Court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under Section 148A(a) and Section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for Section 148A(d) and Section 148. Therefore, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable.”

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
20

It is the opinion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Supreme Court did not waive the requirement of section 148A(d) and section 148 and the AO was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime. Section 151 of the New regime is as under :-
[Sanction for issue of notice.
151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be,—
(i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year;
(ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General,
Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.]
Therefore, under new regime the order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148
after expiry of three years was required to be issued with the sanction obtained from PCCI/ PDGIT/ CCIT/ DGIT as against which the same has been issued with the sanction of PCIT and the same is not in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the new regime.
Further, we have also gone through the judgement of the Hon`ble Delhi
High Court in the case of Kusum Healthcare P Ltd. v/s DCIT (W.P.
(C) No. 383/2023 vide order dated 05.03.2025) wherein the issue was ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
21
also about sanctioning authority for issuing notice u/s 148. In this judgment the Hon`ble Court has stated as under :-
“38. It would therefore be wholly incorrect to read the Taxation and Other
Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act as intending to amend the distribution of power or the categorization envisaged and prescribed by section 151. The additional time that the said statute provided to an authority cannot possibly be construed as altering or modifying the hierarchy or the structure set up by section 151 of the Act. The issue of approval would still be liable to be answered based on whether the reassessment was commenced after or within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year or as per the amended regime dependent upon whether action was being proposed within three years of the end of the relevant assessment year or thereafter. The bifurcation of those powers would continue unaltered and unaffected by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act.
40. What we seek to emphasize is that the Taxation and Other Laws
(Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act authorization merely enables the competent authority to take action within the extended time period and irrespective of the closure which would have ordinarily come about by virtue of the provisions contained in the Act. It does not alter or amend the structure for approval and sanction which stands erected by virtue of section 151. The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain
Provisions) Act merely extended the period within which action could have been initiated and which would have otherwise and ordinarily been governed and regulated by sections 148 and 149 of the Act. If the contention of the respondents were to be accepted it would amount to us virtually ignoring the date when reassessment is proposed to be initiated and the same being indelibly tied to the end of the relevant assessment year. Once it is conceded that the notice came to be issued four or three years after the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax would not be compliant with the scheme of section 151. We thus find ourselves unable to sustain the grant of approval by the Joint
Commissioner of Income-tax.”

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also very categorically mentioned that approval for issuance of notice u/s 148 was required to be taken as per

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
22
time gap between the Assessment Year and time when this notice was to be issued and TOLA did not amend the hierarchy set up under section 151. Hence in this judgement also the Hon’ble Delhi High Court opined that sanction for notice u/s 148 was required to be taken from authority specified under amended section 151 as per time gap existing between the assessment year and time of issue of notice.
Further, very recently in a judgment decided by Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in ITA No. 1320/JPR/2024 dated 06.08.2025 in the case of R Containers Private Limited v/s ITO, Ward 7(1), Jaipur the issue of sanction in cases wherein as per order of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal notice u/s 148 were again issued the following was held :-
10. Even if the argument of the revenue is accepted that the since the time limit for issuance of notice was not expired in this case being A. Y. 2017-18 the notice issued u/s. 148 dated 28.07.2022 [ as is issued after 3 years ] required sanction of the PCCIT but the same is issued with the sanction of PCIT-2,Jaipur and thus, notice issued u/s.148 after lapse of 3 years is bad in law, since the same has been issued without obtaining the approval from Specified authority viz. Pr. CCIT prescribed u/s.151(ii), thereby violating the law settled by Hon'ble
Mumbai in ITA no. 1406/MUM/2024 has decided the issue raised by the assessee as to acquiring the juri iction to issue notice u/s. 148 without proper approval and thereby having similar fact the assessment was quashed and in that the co-ordinate Mumbai bench has given the following finding :
“8. We find that in a recent decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and other Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70
(SC), dated 03.10.2024, Hon'ble Court after the fall out of its own decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) had dealt with the issue in respect of sanction of the specified authority and concluded that TOLA will extend the ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
23
time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified u/s.151. According to the Hon'ble Court, the test to determine whether TOLA will apply to section 151 of the new regime is that if the time limit of three years from the end of the Assessment Year falls between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021 then, the specified authority u/s.151(i) has extended time till 30.06.2021 to grant the approval.
According to the Hon'ble Court, Assessing Officers were required to issue the re-assessment notice u/s.148 of the new regime within the time limit surviving under the Act read with TOLA.
All notices issued beyond the surviving period are time barred and liable to be set aside. Hon'ble Court had elaborately dealt with this issue in Part E of its decision in para 73 to 78 which are extracted below:
73. Section 151 imposes a check upon the power of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtains the sanction of the specified authority before issuing a notice under Section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assessees from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments. 128 A table representing the prescription under the old and new regime is set out below:

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
24
75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under Section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of Ashish Agarwal (supra), after 1 April 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime. The effect of Section 151 of the new regime is thus:
(i) If income escaping assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakha: (a) reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of three years; and (ii) If income escaping assessment is more than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, and (h) after three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief
Commissioner or Director General.
76. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume juri iction under Section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the juri iction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, non-compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limita prescribed under Section 151 affects their juri iction to issue a notice under Section 148. 77. Parliament enacted TOLA to ensure that the interests of the Revenue are not defeated because the assessing officer could not comply with the preconditions due to the difficulties that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic Section 3(1) of TOLA relaxes the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021. TOLA willaccordingly extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under.
Section 151(1) has an extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March
2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) has time till 31 March
2021 to grant approval. The time limit for Section 151 of the old regime expires on 31 March 2021 because the new regime comes into effect on 1 April 2021. 78. For example, the three years time limit for assessment year 2017-2018 falls for completion on 31 March 2021. It falls during the time period of 20 March
2020 and 31 March 2021, contemplated under Section 3(1) of TOLA

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
25
Resultantly, the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30 June 2021......
81. This quote in Ashish Agrawal (supra) directed the Assessing Officers to "pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assessee concerned. Further, it directed the Assessing Officers to issue a notice u/s. 148
of the new regime "after following the procedure as required u/s. 148-A Although this quote waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval u/s.1484(a) and section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for section 148A) and section 148. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an order us. 148Aldi or Issuing a notice u/s 148 These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified u/s.151 of the new regime r.w. TOLA, where applicable.....
114 ....... TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified u/s 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an Assessment Year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority u/s 151() has extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval;....”
8.1. From the above, we note that in para 73, in the table last two rows relate to provisions of Section 151(i) (ii) of the new regime prescribing the time limit as well as the specified authority. In para 75, it is very categorically mentioned by the Hon'ble Court that after 01.04.2021, in terms of Ashish Agrawal (supra) the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified u/s.151 of the new regime. This abundantly brings clarity on the aspect of obtaining approval for issue of notice u/s. 148 which are fall out of the decision in Ashish Agrawal (supra). In para 77, objective of section 3(1) of TOLA is mentioned which is to relax the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021. Thus, the objective is specific for providing temporal flexibility. In para 78, the same has been explained by an example taking Assessment Year 2017-18 which also in specific terms mentions that the authority specified u/s.151 (i) of the new regime can grant sanction till
30.06.2021. Thus, while concluding in para 81 on the issue obtaining approval,
Hon'ble Court has specifically stated that the Assessing Officer is required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an order u/s.148A(d) or issuing a notice u/s.148. According to the Hon'ble Court, though it had waived off the requirement obtaining prior approval u/s.148A(a) and Section 148Ab, it did not waive the requirement for section 148A(d) and Section 148. 8.2. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the Id. Sr. DR and keeping the same in juxtaposition with the above observations and findings of the Hon'ble Court, we note that the issue we are presently addressing raised before us is not on the aspect of "when" for the procedural compliance for issuance of notice u/s.148 but on the aspect of "by whom" it ought to have been issued. Ld. Sr. DR has contended that there is hierarchical escalation vis-à-vis

ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
26
obtaining approval for issuing notice u/s. 148. In this respect, Hon'ble Court has very categorically held in para 75 that the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified u/s.151 of the new regime for the notices issued in terms of Ashish Agrawal (supra) after 01.04.2021. Reference by ld. Sr.
DR to Section 149(1)(a) deals with time limit for issuing notice u/s. 148. Contention of the Id. Sr. DR that there is no hierarchical escalation for obtaining prior approval for issuing notice u/s.148 is not in coherence with the guidelines mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated above. Repeatedly, Hon'ble
Court has stated including by way of illustration that TOLA extends time line from the old regime which survives making the notice validly issued subject to the approval requirements of Section 151 under the new regime. Accordingly, the prior approval requirement is mandated under the section 151 of new regime.
8.3. In the present case, the relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18 and the time limit of three years lapsed on 31.03.2021 which falls between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021 during which provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) would apply.
Accordingly, the amended provisions under the Act read with TOLA extended the time limit for granting of approval till 30.06.2021 by the specified authority.
Thus, on the above stated facts and law, in the present case, three years had lapsed from the end of the Assessment Year when the order u/s.148A(d) and notice u/s.148 was issued on 30.07.2022. In the present case, since the notice u/s. 148 and order u/s. 148A(b) have been issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year, case of the assessee falls within the provisions of section 151 (ii) of the amended law whereby the specified authority for grant of approval is specified as Principal Chief
Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director
General. Contrary to this requirement, the approval obtained is by Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai. Accordingly, since a proper sanction by the specified authority had not beenobtained for issue of notice u/s.
148 under the applicable provisions of law, said notice is invalid and bad in law.
8.4. Keeping in juxtaposition the undisputed and the uncontroverted facts as stated above and the judicial precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal and Rajiv Bansal (supra), we hold that sanction by specified authority has not been obtained by the ld. Assessing Officer in accordance with the provisions contained in section 151 of the Act under the new regime, since notice u/s.148 has been issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant
Assessment Year. Accordingly, the said notice issued is invalid and thus quashed. Resultantly, the impugned re-opening proceedings so initiated and the impugned re-assessment order passed thereafter are also quashed.”

We further find that the issue under consideration is also covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in the case of ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
27
Late Shri Jitendra Nagar vs. ITO in ITA No. 1382/JP/2024 dated
01.10.2025 wherein after considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
(SC), and subsequent order of Bombay, Delhi and Madars High Court, the Coordinate Bench quashed the notice issued under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, as bad in law and the consequential assessment order, by observing at page 44 of its order, as under :-
“ In the case in hand also notice under section 148 dated 25.07.2022 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, hence it required the approval of Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director
General or Chief Commissioner or Director General of Income-tax as per section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but the AO has failed to obtain proper approval from the specified authority before issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961. Since the facts of the present case of the assessee is similar to the case that has been decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in the case of R Containers Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.
1320/JP/2024 dated 06.08.2025, by quashing the notice under section 148, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves to succeed. Thus, on being consistent with the above order which has been passed considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and Ashish
Agarweal (supra), we quash the notice issued under section 148 of the IT Act,
1961, as bad in law and accordingly the consequential assessment order is hereby quashed.”
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, and following the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and Ashish Agarwal (supra), and the judgments of the Hon’ble High Courts and the Tribunal, discussed herein above, we quash the notice issued under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961, as bad in ITA No. 1263 /JPR/2025
Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
28
law and accordingly the consequential assessment order is hereby quashed.
7. As we have quashed the assessment order, hence there is no requirement for going into other grounds of appeal.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/11/2025. ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½

¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½
(RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI)

(Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 19/11/2025
*Santosh
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur.
2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)
5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत.
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 1263/JPR/2025 }

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत