SHAILESH ASALRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI 20, MUMBAI
Facts
The assessee's return of income for AY 2018-19 declared income of Rs. 7,04,780/-. Information was received about the assessee admitting ownership of gold jewellery valued at approximately Rs. 90,00,000/- without supporting evidence. Reassessment proceedings were initiated. The Assessing Officer (AO) dropped the reassessment proceedings. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) invoked Section 263, holding the AO's action erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year and required sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) or Chief Commissioner (CCIT) as per Section 151(ii). The sanction obtained from the PCIT was not from the competent authority. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was invalid, making the subsequent reassessment proceedings and the PCIT's order under Section 263 unsustainable.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were valid, and whether the PCIT's order under Section 263 was justified, considering the validity of the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148.
Sections Cited
Section 263, Section 148, Section 147, Section 148A, Section 151, Section 149
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER)
ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19
Shailesh Asalraj Jain, Pr. CIT, Mumbai 20, 904, 9th floor, Rushabh Tower, Room No. 418, 4th floor, Vs. Tarabaug Compound, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Lovelane, Mazgaon, Parel, Mumbai-400010. Mumbai-400012. PAN NO. AACPJ 2952 N Appellant Respondent
Assessee by : Mr. Devendra Jain : Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR Revenue by
: 03/12/2025 Date of Hearing : 24/02/2026 Date of pronouncement
ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the revisionary order dated 31.03.2025 passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax -20, Mumbai [in short the Ld. ‘PCIT’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds:
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 20, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as PCIT) erred in passing the order under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ('the act') and remitting the matter back to the Income- tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as
Shailesh Asalraj Jain 2 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025
the 'AO') for de the 'AO') for de-novo consideration and pass a speaking novo consideration and pass a speaking assessment order in accordan assessment order in accordance with the Act. The Appellant submits that the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 The Appellant submits that the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 The Appellant submits that the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law, illegal, ultra of the Act is bad in law, illegal, ultra-virus, in excess of and/or in virus, in excess of and/or in want of jurisdiction and otherwise void as no valid order of the want of jurisdiction and otherwise void as no valid order of the want of jurisdiction and otherwise void as no valid order of the AO was passed in the case of the Appell AO was passed in the case of the Appellant to justify the revision ant to justify the revision proceedings by the PCIT. proceedings by the PCIT. 2. The PCIT erred in holding that that the AO did not make any 2. The PCIT erred in holding that that the AO did not make any 2. The PCIT erred in holding that that the AO did not make any detailed inquiry and verification which should have been made to detailed inquiry and verification which should have been made to detailed inquiry and verification which should have been made to examine the issue of escapement of income and that the action of examine the issue of escapement of income and that the action of examine the issue of escapement of income and that the action of dropping of the proceedings by the AO before allocation of the of the proceedings by the AO before allocation of the of the proceedings by the AO before allocation of the case to the Faceless Assessing Officer by the DGIT (Systems) as case to the Faceless Assessing Officer by the DGIT (Systems) as case to the Faceless Assessing Officer by the DGIT (Systems) as per the SOPs issued on various dates is erroneous and per the SOPs issued on various dates is erroneous and per the SOPs issued on various dates is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Appellant submits that he had The Appellant submits that he had submitted all the detailed submitted all the detailed facts along with supporting evidences pertaining to the issue facts along with supporting evidences pertaining to the issue facts along with supporting evidences pertaining to the issue pursuant to the Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and also pursuant to the Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and also pursuant to the Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and also after initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of after initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of after initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. The Appellant further submi the Act. The Appellant further submits that the dropping of the ts that the dropping of the proceedings by the AO (as mentioned in your Notice) cannot be proceedings by the AO (as mentioned in your Notice) cannot be proceedings by the AO (as mentioned in your Notice) cannot be termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue so as to attract provisions of Section 263 of the Act since all the so as to attract provisions of Section 263 of the Act since all the so as to attract provisions of Section 263 of the Act since all the details / evidences / supporting details / evidences / supporting were on record and the AO has and the AO has applied his mind, deliberated, and considered the issue in the applied his mind, deliberated, and considered the issue in the applied his mind, deliberated, and considered the issue in the light of the material available with him and has then reached a light of the material available with him and has then reached a light of the material available with him and has then reached a finding for not taking any further action in the reassessment finding for not taking any further action in the reassessment finding for not taking any further action in the reassessment proceedings / or dropping the same ( proceedings / or dropping the same (as intimated by the AO). as intimated by the AO). 2. Before us, the assessee also raised additional Before us, the assessee also raised additional Before us, the assessee also raised additional legal grounds challenging the very validity of the reassessment proceedings, inter challenging the very validity of the reassessment proceedings, inter challenging the very validity of the reassessment proceedings, inter alia, contending that: alia, contending that:
On the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant and in law, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 20, Mumbai ['PCIT'] erred in assuming jurisdiction and passing the Mumbai ['PCIT'] erred in assuming jurisdiction and passing the Mumbai ['PCIT'] erred in assuming jurisdiction and passing the order under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating order under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating order under Section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating and inspite of the fact that the reassessment proceeding u/s 148 and inspite of the fact that the reassessment proceeding u/s 148 and inspite of the fact that the reassessment proceeding u/s 148 of the Act undertaken in the case of Appellant itself is bad in law, dertaken in the case of Appellant itself is bad in law, dertaken in the case of Appellant itself is bad in law, without jurisdiction and ultra without jurisdiction and ultra-vires to the provisions of the Act vires to the provisions of the Act and hence no proceeding u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated in and hence no proceeding u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated in and hence no proceeding u/s 263 of the Act can be initiated in the case of the Appellant. the case of the Appellant.
Shailesh Asalraj Jain 3 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025
On the facts and circumstances of the cas 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant e of the Appellant and in law, the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction and passing and in law, the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction and passing and in law, the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction and passing the order under Section 263 of the Act without appreciating and the order under Section 263 of the Act without appreciating and the order under Section 263 of the Act without appreciating and inspite of the fact that there is no valid order existing or passed inspite of the fact that there is no valid order existing or passed inspite of the fact that there is no valid order existing or passed by the AO which can be subjected to revis by the AO which can be subjected to revision u/s 263 of the Act; ion u/s 263 of the Act; hence in absence of a valid order by the AO, assumption of hence in absence of a valid order by the AO, assumption of hence in absence of a valid order by the AO, assumption of jurisdiction and order passed by the PCIT is bad in law, without jurisdiction and order passed by the PCIT is bad in law, without jurisdiction and order passed by the PCIT is bad in law, without jurisdiction and ultra jurisdiction and ultra-vires to the provision of the Act and same vires to the provision of the Act and same shall be quashed. shall be quashed. 3. Since the additional Since the additional grounds raised by the assessee are purely grounds raised by the assessee are purely legal in nature, go to the root of jurisdiction, and require no fresh legal in nature, go to the root of jurisdiction, and require no fresh legal in nature, go to the root of jurisdiction, and require no fresh investigation of facts, the same were admitted for adjudication. investigation of facts, the same were admitted for adjudication. investigation of facts, the same were admitted for adjudication.
Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed return Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed return Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 03.10.2018 declaring me for the year under consideration on 03.10.2018 declaring me for the year under consideration on 03.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs.7,04,780/ total income at Rs.7,04,780/-. Subsequently, information was Subsequently, information was received through the Insight Portal indicating that the assessee had, received through the Insight Portal indicating that the assessee had, received through the Insight Portal indicating that the assessee had, during a statement recorded on oath before the Investigation Wing, during a statement recorded on oath before the Investigation Wing during a statement recorded on oath before the Investigation Wing Mumbai admitted ownership of gold jewellery weighing 3281.5 Mumbai admitted ownership of gold jewellery weighing Mumbai admitted ownership of gold jewellery weighing grams, 90,00,000/ 90,00,000/-, , valued valued at at approximately approximately Rs. Rs. without supporting supporting documentary documentary evidence. evidence. On On the the basis basis of of such such information, proceedings under the amended reassessment regime information, proceedings under the amended reassessment regime information, proceedings under the amended reassessment regime were initiated. An order under section 148A(d) was passed, followed were initiated. An order under section was passed, followed by issuance of notice under section 148 on 19.04.2022 19.04.2022. by issuance of notice under section
4.1 In response, the assessee filed a return rei In response, the assessee filed a return reiterating the income terating the income originally declared. The ld PCIT, upon examination of records, The ld PCIT, upon examination of records, observed that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had observed that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had observed that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) had dropped the reassessment proceedings without conducting enquiry dropped the reassessment proceedings without conducting enquiry dropped the reassessment proceedings without conducting enquiry
Shailesh Asalraj Jain 4 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025
and even prior to allocation under the Faceless and even prior to allocation under the Faceless Assessment Scheme Assessment Scheme by the DGIT system as per standard operating procedure (SOP) by the DGIT system as per standard operating procedure (SOP) by the DGIT system as per standard operating procedure (SOP) issued on various dates in regard to reassessment proceedings. issued on various dates in regard to reassessment proceedings. issued on various dates in regard to reassessment proceedings. Holding such action to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests Holding such action to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests Holding such action to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the Principal Commissioner i of the Revenue, the Principal Commissioner invoked section nvoked section 263 and set aside the reassessment proceedings for fresh consideration and set aside the reassessment proceedings for fresh consideration and set aside the reassessment proceedings for fresh consideration observing as under:
“7. The above explanation at clause (c) clearly provides that the 7. The above explanation at clause (c) clearly provides that the 7. The above explanation at clause (c) clearly provides that the instruction by the Board u/s 119 has to be complied with. The instruction by the Board u/s 119 has to be complied with. The instruction by the Board u/s 119 has to be complied with. The contention of the asse contention of the assessee that he had furnished the response before ssee that he had furnished the response before the JAO which was considered for dropping the assessment the JAO which was considered for dropping the assessment the JAO which was considered for dropping the assessment proceeding by the JAO is however not in accordance with the proceeding by the JAO is however not in accordance with the proceeding by the JAO is however not in accordance with the Faceless Assessment Scheme introduced w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and Faceless Assessment Scheme introduced w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and Faceless Assessment Scheme introduced w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and therefore, the dropping of asses therefore, the dropping of assessment proceeding is erroneous and sment proceeding is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Further, it is also noted that the prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Further, it is also noted that the prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Further, it is also noted that the AO did not issue notice u/s 133(6), notice u/s 142(1), summons u/s AO did not issue notice u/s 133(6), notice u/s 142(1), summons u/s AO did not issue notice u/s 133(6), notice u/s 142(1), summons u/s 131 and did not make any detailed inquiry and verification which 131 and did not make any detailed inquiry and verification which 131 and did not make any detailed inquiry and verification which should have bee should have been made to examine the issues of escapement of n made to examine the issues of escapement of income. 8. In view of the above discussion from Para 1 to 7, it is evident that 8. In view of the above discussion from Para 1 to 7, it is evident that 8. In view of the above discussion from Para 1 to 7, it is evident that this is a case where this is a case where the assessing officer has without application of the assessing officer has without application of mind and without making any enquiry or verifying the details mind and without making any enquiry or verifying the details mind and without making any enquiry or verifying the details of the case and before allocation of the case to the Faceless Assessing case and before allocation of the case to the Faceless Assessing case and before allocation of the case to the Faceless Assessing Officer by the DGIT(Systems) as per the SOPs issued on various Officer by the DGIT(Systems) as per the SOPs issued on various Officer by the DGIT(Systems) as per the SOPs issued on various dates by the DGIT(Systems), dropped the proceedings on the ITBA dates by the DGIT(Systems), dropped the proceedings on the ITBA dates by the DGIT(Systems), dropped the proceedings on the ITBA portal. The action of dropping of the proceedings by the portal. The action of dropping of the proceedings by the portal. The action of dropping of the proceedings by the JAO without verifying the fact of the case before allocation of the case to the verifying the fact of the case before allocation of the case to the verifying the fact of the case before allocation of the case to the Faceless Assessing Officer by the DGIT(Systems) as per the SOPs Faceless Assessing Officer by the DGIT(Systems) as per the SOPs Faceless Assessing Officer by the DGIT(Systems) as per the SOPs issued on various dates is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of issued on various dates is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of issued on various dates is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, in exercise of the revenue. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon the the powers conferred upon the undersigned under Section 263 of the Income undersigned under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the order tax Act, 1961, the order of the AO dropping the proceedings on the ITBA is hereby set aside. of the AO dropping the proceedings on the ITBA is hereby set aside. of the AO dropping the proceedings on the ITBA is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the AO for de The matter is remitted back to the AO for de- novo consideration to novo consideration to undertake a detailed undertake a detailed inquiry and verification in this case and pass inquiry and verification in this case and pass speaking assessment order in accordance with the Income Tax act, speaking assessment order in accordance with the Income Tax act, speaking assessment order in accordance with the Income Tax act, 1961 by following extant SOPs in this regard after giving due 1961 by following extant SOPs in this regard after giving due 1961 by following extant SOPs in this regard after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. opportunity of being heard to the assessee.”
Shailesh Asalraj Jain 5 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025
The primary legal contention advanced by the assessee in The primary legal contention advanced by the assessee in The primary legal contention advanced by the assessee in additional ground is that the notice under section additional ground is that the notice under section 148 148 was issued without sanction from the competent authority as mandated under without sanction from the competent authority as mandated under without sanction from the competent authority as mandated under section 151 of the Act. of the Act. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to page 72 and submitted that the notice under section 148 was submitted that the notice under section 148 was submitted that the notice under section 148 was issued beyond three years three years from the end of the relevant assessment from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, sanction ought to have been obtained from the year, therefore, sanction ought to have been obtained from the year, therefore, sanction ought to have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (PCCIT) tax (PCCIT) or Chief Commissioner of Income ioner of Income-tax (CCIT) in terms of section in terms of section 151(ii) as existed during the relevant period existed during the relevant period, however, approval was obtained , however, approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Principal Commissioner of Income- -tax (PCIT)-20, Mumbai, who was not the specified authority for such cases. Mumbai, who was not the specified authority for such cases. Mumbai, who was not the specified authority for such cases. According to him the approval obtained from wrong authority has im the approval obtained from wrong authority has im the approval obtained from wrong authority has vitiated entire reassessment proceedings vitiated entire reassessment proceedings
5.1 The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shabbir Taheri in ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shabbir Taheri in ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shabbir Taheri in ITA No. 1574/Mum/2025 for ass ITA No. 1574/Mum/2025 for assessment year 2018 essment year 2018-19 wherein the Hon’ble Vice President concurred with the Ld. AM and passed a Hon’ble Vice President concurred with the Ld. AM and passed a Hon’ble Vice President concurred with the Ld. AM and passed a separate order explaining as from whom the approval u/s 151 of separate order explaining as from whom the approval u/s 151 of separate order explaining as from whom the approval u/s 151 of the Act should have been taken the Act should have been taken. In said case also, t , the assessment year involved is AY 2018 year involved is AY 2018-19 which is in the case of the present h is in the case of the present appeal.
5.2 On the contrary, the Departmental Representative (DR) On the contrary, the Departmental Representative (DR) On the contrary, the Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that approval had been granted as per the rules and the submitted that approval had been granted as per the rules and the submitted that approval had been granted as per the rules and the
Shailesh Asalraj Jain 6 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025
assessee cannot be allowed to assessee cannot be allowed to rack up the issue of reassessment in the issue of reassessment in the proceeding u/s 263 263 of the Act.
We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. the relevant materials on record. The objection raised by the The objection raised by the Revenue that the validity of reassessment cannot be examined in Revenue that the validity of reassessment cannot be examined in Revenue that the validity of reassessment cannot be examined in proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. It is well- proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. proceedings arising from section 263 is devoid of merit. settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of settled that a jurisdictional defect strikes at the foundation of proceedings and can be examined at any stage. In the case proceedings and can be examined at any stage. proceedings and can be examined at any stage. proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was dropped by the Assessing proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was dropped by the Assessing proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was dropped by the Assessing Officer and therefore, there was no occasion for the assessee to Officer and therefore, there was no occasion for the assesse Officer and therefore, there was no occasion for the assesse challenge said proceedings before appellate authority and only challenge said proceedings before appellate authority and only challenge said proceedings before appellate authority and only opportunity got to challenge said proceedings u/s 148 in the opportunity got to challenge said proceedings u/s 148 in the opportunity got to challenge said proceedings u/s 148 in the present proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. present proceedings u/s 263 of the Act.
6.1 In the present case, it is undisputed that the notice under n the present case, it is undisputed that the notice under n the present case, it is undisputed that the notice under section 148 was issue was issued on 19.04.2022, i.e., beyond three years , i.e., beyond three years from the end of assessment year 2018-19., Under section Under section 151, as it from the end of assessment year stood at the relevant time, where more than three years had elapsed stood at the relevant time, where more than three years had elapsed stood at the relevant time, where more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, prior sanction was from the end of the relevant assessment year, prior sanction was from the end of the relevant assessment year, prior sanction was required from the PCCIT / CCIT PCCIT / CCIT. The assessee relied The assessee relied on the finding of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shabbir ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shabbir ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shabbir Taheri (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Vice President in his separate Taheri (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Vice President in his separate Taheri (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Vice President in his separate order has observed as under: order has observed as under:
“4. At this stage, it is necessary to examin 4. At this stage, it is necessary to examine the provisions contained e the provisions contained u/s. 149 of the Act. Prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 2021 u/s. 149 of the Act. Prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 2021 u/s. 149 of the Act. Prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 2021
Shailesh Asalraj Jain 7 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025
effective from 01.04.2021, sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act effective from 01.04.2021, sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act effective from 01.04.2021, sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act provided that no notice u/s. 148 shall be issued for the relevant provided that no notice u/s. 148 shall be issued for the relevant provided that no notice u/s. 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year after expi assessment year after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant ry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, it further provided that in a case where assessment year. However, it further provided that in a case where assessment year. However, it further provided that in a case where the quantum of escaped income is Rs.1,00,000/ the quantum of escaped income is Rs.1,00,000/- or more, instead of or more, instead of four years, six years limitation would be available. It further provided four years, six years limitation would be available. It further provided four years, six years limitation would be available. It further provided that if the escaped income relates to any asset located outside India, t if the escaped income relates to any asset located outside India, t if the escaped income relates to any asset located outside India, the limitation would get extended to sixteen years. The aforesaid the limitation would get extended to sixteen years. The aforesaid the limitation would get extended to sixteen years. The aforesaid provision was substituted by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. As provision was substituted by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. As provision was substituted by Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021. As per section 149(1) of the Act under the new regime, no per section 149(1) of the Act under the new regime, no per section 149(1) of the Act under the new regime, no notice u/s. 148 of the Act shall be issued for the relevant assessment year if three of the Act shall be issued for the relevant assessment year if three of the Act shall be issued for the relevant assessment year if three years have elapsed for the relevant assessment year. However, in a years have elapsed for the relevant assessment year. However, in a years have elapsed for the relevant assessment year. However, in a case where the income escaping assessment is Rs.50,00,000/ case where the income escaping assessment is Rs.50,00,000/ case where the income escaping assessment is Rs.50,00,000/- or more then the limitation for issuance of more then the limitation for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act will notice u/s. 148 of the Act will get extended to ten years. The third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act get extended to ten years. The third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act get extended to ten years. The third proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act provided that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the provided that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the provided that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee as per show cause time or extended time allowed to the assessee as per show cause time or extended time allowed to the assessee as per show cause notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the Act or the period during which d u/s. 148A(b) of the Act or the period during which d u/s. 148A(b) of the Act or the period during which proceeding u/s. 148 is stayed by an order of injunction of any court proceeding u/s. 148 is stayed by an order of injunction of any court proceeding u/s. 148 is stayed by an order of injunction of any court shall be excluded. The fourth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act shall be excluded. The fourth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act shall be excluded. The fourth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act provided that immediately after exclusion of period referred in thi provided that immediately after exclusion of period referred in thi provided that immediately after exclusion of period referred in third proviso, if the period of limitation available to the AO for passing an proviso, if the period of limitation available to the AO for passing an proviso, if the period of limitation available to the AO for passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is less than seven days, such order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is less than seven days, such order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and accordingly the remaining period shall be extended to seven days and accordingly the remaining period shall be extended to seven days and accordingly the period of limitation for issuance of notice period of limitation for issuance of notice u/s. 148 shall be deemed to u/s. 148 shall be deemed to have been extended. have been extended. 5. Interestingly, sub section (2) to Section 149 of the Act provides that 5. Interestingly, sub section (2) to Section 149 of the Act provides that 5. Interestingly, sub section (2) to Section 149 of the Act provides that the limitation prescribed under sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act the limitation prescribed under sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act the limitation prescribed under sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act for issuance of notice shall be subject to the provisions for issuance of notice shall be subject to the provisions for issuance of notice shall be subject to the provisions of Section 151 of the Act. The use of word 'shall' in sub section (2) of Section 149 of of the Act. The use of word 'shall' in sub section (2) of Section 149 of of the Act. The use of word 'shall' in sub section (2) of Section 149 of the Act makes it clear that the limitation prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act the Act makes it clear that the limitation prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act the Act makes it clear that the limitation prescribed u/s. 149 of the Act for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act is subject to the timeline for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act is subject to the timeline for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act is subject to the timeline prescribed u/s. 151 of t prescribed u/s. 151 of the Act. In other words, the limitation he Act. In other words, the limitation prescribed u/s. 149(1) of the Act would not override the timeline prescribed u/s. 149(1) of the Act would not override the timeline prescribed u/s. 149(1) of the Act would not override the timeline prescribed for grant of approval by the specified authority u/s. 151 of prescribed for grant of approval by the specified authority u/s. 151 of prescribed for grant of approval by the specified authority u/s. 151 of the Act. Section 151 of the Act as it stood after substitution of earlier the Act. Section 151 of the Act as it stood after substitution of earlier the Act. Section 151 of the Act as it stood after substitution of earlier Section 151 of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 effective from 01.04.2021 on 151 of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 effective from 01.04.2021 on 151 of the Act by Finance Act, 2021 effective from 01.04.2021 and before its amendment by Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and before its amendment by Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and before its amendment by Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. 01.04.2023 reads as under: reads as under: "151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and "151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and "151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be, section 148A shall be,- (i) Principal (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; from the end of the relevant assessment year;
Shailesh Asalraj Jain 8 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025
(ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or 33[***] Chief Commissioner 33[***] Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year:" assessment year:" 6. As could be seen from the provision contained u/s. 151 of the Act 6. As could be seen from the provision contained u/s. 151 of the Act 6. As could be seen from the provision contained u/s. 151 of the Act reproduced above, as per clause (i), in a case where action u/s. 148 reproduced above, as per clause (i), in a case where action u/s. 148 reproduced above, as per clause (i), in a case where action u/s. 148 and Section 148A of the Act is initiated before expiry of three years 148A of the Act is initiated before expiry of three years 148A of the Act is initiated before expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority who can grant sanction/approval is the Principal Commissioner or who can grant sanction/approval is the Principal Commissioner or who can grant sanction/approval is the Principal Commissioner or Principal Director General or Commissioner or Director of Inco Principal Director General or Commissioner or Director of Inco Principal Director General or Commissioner or Director of Income Tax. However, as per clause (ii), if more than three years have elapsed from However, as per clause (ii), if more than three years have elapsed from However, as per clause (ii), if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority, who the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority, who the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority, who can grant sanction is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal can grant sanction is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal can grant sanction is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where no Principal Director General or where no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General is available then Chief Commissioner or Director Director General is available then Chief Commissioner or Director Director General is available then Chief Commissioner or Director General of Income Tax. It is noteworthy, akin to third and fourth General of Income Tax. It is noteworthy, akin to third and fourth General of Income Tax. It is noteworthy, akin to third and fourth provisos, which were incorporated in Section 149(1) of the Act under provisos, which were incorporated in Section 149(1) of the Act under provisos, which were incorporated in Section 149(1) of the Act under the new regime effecti the new regime effective from 01.04.2021, no corresponding ve from 01.04.2021, no corresponding amendment was made to Section 151 of the Act. By virtue of Finance amendment was made to Section 151 of the Act. By virtue of Finance amendment was made to Section 151 of the Act. By virtue of Finance Act, 2023 effective from 01.04.2023, the following proviso was added Act, 2023 effective from 01.04.2023, the following proviso was added Act, 2023 effective from 01.04.2023, the following proviso was added to Section 151 of the Act. to Section 151 of the Act. “Provided that the period of three years for the purpose “Provided that the period of three years for the purpose “Provided that the period of three years for the purposes of Clause (i) shall be computed after taking into account, the period of limitation as shall be computed after taking into account, the period of limitation as shall be computed after taking into account, the period of limitation as excluded by the third, fourth and fifth provisos or extended by the excluded by the third, fourth and fifth provisos or extended by the excluded by the third, fourth and fifth provisos or extended by the sixth proviso to sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act." sixth proviso to sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act." sixth proviso to sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act." 7. Thus, as per Section 151 of the Act 7. Thus, as per Section 151 of the Act as it stood prior to its as it stood prior to its amendment by Finance Act, 2023, the limitation prescribed under amendment by Finance Act, 2023, the limitation prescribed under amendment by Finance Act, 2023, the limitation prescribed under Clause (i) of Section 151 of the Act was prior to expiry of three years Clause (i) of Section 151 of the Act was prior to expiry of three years Clause (i) of Section 151 of the Act was prior to expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and without benefit of from the end of the relevant assessment year and without benefit of from the end of the relevant assessment year and without benefit of further extension in terms further extension in terms with third, fourth or fifth proviso under sub with third, fourth or fifth proviso under sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act. section (1) of Section 149 of the Act. 8. Therefore, keeping in view the provision contained under sub 8. Therefore, keeping in view the provision contained under sub 8. Therefore, keeping in view the provision contained under sub section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, which makes the limitation section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, which makes the limitation section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, which makes the limitation provided u/s. 149(1) of the Act subject provided u/s. 149(1) of the Act subject to the timeline provided u/s. to the timeline provided u/s. 151 of the Act, the limitation provided u/s. 149(1) of the Act including 151 of the Act, the limitation provided u/s. 149(1) of the Act including 151 of the Act, the limitation provided u/s. 149(1) of the Act including the provisos cannot get imported for the purpose of extending the the provisos cannot get imported for the purpose of extending the the provisos cannot get imported for the purpose of extending the limitation u/s. 151(i) of the Act prior to the amendment of section 151 limitation u/s. 151(i) of the Act prior to the amendment of section 151 limitation u/s. 151(i) of the Act prior to the amendment of section 151 of the Act by F of the Act by Finance Act, 2023. That being the case, the timeline for inance Act, 2023. That being the case, the timeline for sanction by specified authority fixed u/s. 151 of the Act has to be sanction by specified authority fixed u/s. 151 of the Act has to be sanction by specified authority fixed u/s. 151 of the Act has to be scrupulously followed. scrupulously followed. 9. At this stage, it is to be noted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High 9. At this stage, it is to be noted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High 9. At this stage, it is to be noted that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the decisions referred to Court in the decisions referred to by my learned brother Accountant by my learned brother Accountant
Shailesh Asalraj Jain 9 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025
Member in his order has specifically held that the proviso inserted to Member in his order has specifically held that the proviso inserted to Member in his order has specifically held that the proviso inserted to Section 151 of the Act by Finance Act, 2023, effective from 01.04.2023 Section 151 of the Act by Finance Act, 2023, effective from 01.04.2023 Section 151 of the Act by Finance Act, 2023, effective from 01.04.2023 will not apply prior to its effective date. Pertinently the line of argument will not apply prior to its effective date. Pertinently the line of argument will not apply prior to its effective date. Pertinently the line of argument taken by the Department in the case of Albert Joseph Rozario vs. ITO n by the Department in the case of Albert Joseph Rozario vs. ITO n by the Department in the case of Albert Joseph Rozario vs. ITO (Supra) was not for the first time. Identical argument was advanced by (Supra) was not for the first time. Identical argument was advanced by (Supra) was not for the first time. Identical argument was advanced by the Department in following two cases dealt by the Coordinate the Department in following two cases dealt by the Coordinate the Department in following two cases dealt by the Coordinate Benches: (i). (i). (i). Davos Davos Davos International International International Fund Fund Fund Vs. Vs. Vs. ACIT, ACIT, ACIT, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai, ITA I I No. 1190/Mum/2024 dated 13.01.2025. 1190/Mum/2024 dated 13.01.2025. (ii). ACIT vs. Asha P. Kedia [2025] 174 taxmann.com 99 (Mumbai (ii). ACIT vs. Asha P. Kedia [2025] 174 taxmann.com 99 (Mumbai (ii). ACIT vs. Asha P. Kedia [2025] 174 taxmann.com 99 (Mumbai-Trib.) 10. While dealing with the contentions of learned Departmental 10. While dealing with the contentions of learned Departmental 10. While dealing with the contentions of learned Departmental Representative in case of Davos International Fund (Supra), the Representative in case of Davos International Fund (Supra), the Representative in case of Davos International Fund (Supra), the Coordinate Bench has Coordinate Bench has held as under: "7. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. In "7. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. In "7. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. In assessee's case the 148A notice for AY 2017 assessee's case the 148A notice for AY 2017-18 was issued on 18 was issued on 12.03.2022 and the order disposing the objections of the assessee 12.03.2022 and the order disposing the objections of the assessee 12.03.2022 and the order disposing the objections of the assessee was passed on 04.04.2022 under section 148A(d) of was passed on 04.04.2022 under section 148A(d) of was passed on 04.04.2022 under section 148A(d) of the Act. The AO issued notice under section 148 dated 04.04.2022. On perusal of the issued notice under section 148 dated 04.04.2022. On perusal of the issued notice under section 148 dated 04.04.2022. On perusal of the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and 148 (page 42 to 46 and 47 order under section 148A(d) of the Act and 148 (page 42 to 46 and 47 order under section 148A(d) of the Act and 148 (page 42 to 46 and 47 of PB) we notice that the impugned notices are issued after obtaining of PB) we notice that the impugned notices are issued after obtaining of PB) we notice that the impugned notices are issued after obtaining the prior approval of CIT (IT), the prior approval of CIT (IT), Mumbai-2. The case of the revenue is 2. The case of the revenue is that the notice dated 04.04.2022 is issued within three years since as that the notice dated 04.04.2022 is issued within three years since as that the notice dated 04.04.2022 is issued within three years since as per the 5th proviso to section 149, the AO has got additional 9 days for per the 5th proviso to section 149, the AO has got additional 9 days for per the 5th proviso to section 149, the AO has got additional 9 days for issue of notice under section 148 i.e. upto 09.04.2022. since the issue of notice under section 148 i.e. upto 09.04.2022. since the issue of notice under section 148 i.e. upto 09.04.2022. since the extended time of 9 days i.e. from 22.03.2022 to 31.03.2022 was given time of 9 days i.e. from 22.03.2022 to 31.03.2022 was given time of 9 days i.e. from 22.03.2022 to 31.03.2022 was given to the assessee. Therefore, it is argued by the revenue that notice to the assessee. Therefore, it is argued by the revenue that notice to the assessee. Therefore, it is argued by the revenue that notice issued on 04.04.2022 is within period of three years and the approval issued on 04.04.2022 is within period of three years and the approval issued on 04.04.2022 is within period of three years and the approval has been correctly obtained by the authority as specified has been correctly obtained by the authority as specified has been correctly obtained by the authority as specified in section 151(i) of the Act. The assessee is contending that the 5th proviso to 151(i) of the Act. The assessee is contending that the 5th proviso to 151(i) of the Act. The assessee is contending that the 5th proviso to section 149 under which the revenue is taking cover is inserted w.e.f. section 149 under which the revenue is taking cover is inserted w.e.f. section 149 under which the revenue is taking cover is inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and therefore not applicable to assessee's case. In this 01.04.2023 and therefore not applicable to assessee's case. In this 01.04.2023 and therefore not applicable to assessee's case. In this regard, we notice that the Hon'ble B regard, we notice that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court iln the case of ombay High Court iln the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd (supra) has held that Vodafone Idea Ltd (supra) has held that- "1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 19th March 2022 issued "1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 19th March 2022 issued "1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 19th March 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the order under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the order under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice both dated 7th the notice both dated 7th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. One of the grounds April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. One of the grounds April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. One of the grounds raised is that the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of raised is that the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of raised is that the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is invalid the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is invalid the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is invalid inasmuch as the sanc inasmuch as the sanction has been admittedly issued by the Principal tion has been admittedly issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT") and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT") and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT") and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT"). 2. Petitioner's request for a copy Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT"). 2. Petitioner's request for a copy Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT"). 2. Petitioner's request for a copy
Shailesh Asalraj Jain 10 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025
of the sanction has also been denied. Even in the affidavit in reply of the sanction has also been denied. Even in the affidavit in reply of the sanction has also been denied. Even in the affidavit in reply, the Department is refusing to give the sanction which makes us wonder Department is refusing to give the sanction which makes us wonder Department is refusing to give the sanction which makes us wonder what is the national secret involved in that, that Assessee is being what is the national secret involved in that, that Assessee is being what is the national secret involved in that, that Assessee is being refused what he is rightfully entitled to receive from the Department. In refused what he is rightfully entitled to receive from the Department. In refused what he is rightfully entitled to receive from the Department. In the affidavit in reply, the stand taken b the affidavit in reply, the stand taken by the Revenue is it will be y the Revenue is it will be made available during the re made available during the re- assessment proceeding. 3. The assessment proceeding. 3. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai 5. The matter pertains to A Mumbai 5. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018 ssessment Year ("AY") 2018-19 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151 (ii) under Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 has been of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 has been inserted only with effect from 1" April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be inserted only with effect from 1" April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be inserted only with effect from 1" April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand. 4. In this circumstances, as held by applicable to the matter at hand. 4. In this circumstances, as held by applicable to the matter at hand. 4. In this circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. D this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. D this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the sanction is invalid and Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the sanction is invalid and Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 7th consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 7th consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 under section 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby April 2022 under section 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby April 2022 under section 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside." quashed and set aside." 8. Similar view is held by the j 8. Similar view is held by the jurisdictional High Court also in other urisdictional High Court also in other cases as listed herein above. In the decision of the Vodafone Idea cases as listed herein above. In the decision of the Vodafone Idea cases as listed herein above. In the decision of the Vodafone Idea (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has given a specific finding that the (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has given a specific finding that the (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has given a specific finding that the proviso to section 151 extending the time limit as per the third, fourth proviso to section 151 extending the time limit as per the third, fourth proviso to section 151 extending the time limit as per the third, fourth or fifth proviso to section 149 is not applicable for AY 2018 h proviso to section 149 is not applicable for AY 2018 h proviso to section 149 is not applicable for AY 2018-19 as the same is inserted only w.e.f. 01.04.2023. When we apply the said ratio same is inserted only w.e.f. 01.04.2023. When we apply the said ratio same is inserted only w.e.f. 01.04.2023. When we apply the said ratio to assessee's case, in our considered view, the claim of the revenue to assessee's case, in our considered view, the claim of the revenue to assessee's case, in our considered view, the claim of the revenue that the period of 3 years expires only on 09.04.202 that the period of 3 years expires only on 09.04.202 that the period of 3 years expires only on 09.04.2022 is not correct and that revenue cannot take shelter under the proviso to section 151 and that revenue cannot take shelter under the proviso to section 151 and that revenue cannot take shelter under the proviso to section 151 which came into effect only from 01.04.2023. Accordingly the notice which came into effect only from 01.04.2023. Accordingly the notice which came into effect only from 01.04.2023. Accordingly the notice issued on 04.04.2022 by the AO is issued beyond three years and issued on 04.04.2022 by the AO is issued beyond three years and issued on 04.04.2022 by the AO is issued beyond three years and therefore the approval should have be therefore the approval should have been obtained by the authorities as en obtained by the authorities as specified under section 151(ii) Principle Chief Commission. As already specified under section 151(ii) Principle Chief Commission. As already specified under section 151(ii) Principle Chief Commission. As already stated the approval in assessee's case is obtained from CIT(IT) and stated the approval in assessee's case is obtained from CIT(IT) and stated the approval in assessee's case is obtained from CIT(IT) and therefore we are inclined to agree with the contention of the assessee therefore we are inclined to agree with the contention of the assessee therefore we are inclined to agree with the contention of the assessee that the notice under section 148 has been issued without obtaining ice under section 148 has been issued without obtaining ice under section 148 has been issued without obtaining the approval from the correct authority as specified under section 151. the approval from the correct authority as specified under section 151. the approval from the correct authority as specified under section 151. Respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court we hold that the notice issued by the AO under secti Court we hold that the notice issued by the AO under secti Court we hold that the notice issued by the AO under section 148 without obtaining approval from correct appropriate authority is invalid without obtaining approval from correct appropriate authority is invalid without obtaining approval from correct appropriate authority is invalid and the assessment done under section 147 r.w.s. 144(13) of the Act and the assessment done under section 147 r.w.s. 144(13) of the Act and the assessment done under section 147 r.w.s. 144(13) of the Act is liable to be quashed." is liable to be quashed." 11. Similar view was reiterated by the Coordinate Bench in case of 11. Similar view was reiterated by the Coordinate Bench in case of 11. Similar view was reiterated by the Coordinate Bench in case of ACIT vs. Asha P ACIT vs. Asha P. Kedia (Supra). It is relevant to observe, though the . Kedia (Supra). It is relevant to observe, though the aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Benches were rendered at a aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Benches were rendered at a aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Benches were rendered at a
Shailesh Asalraj Jain 11 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025
prior point of time and were available when the appeal of Albert prior point of time and were available when the appeal of Albert prior point of time and were available when the appeal of Albert Joseph Rozario (Supra) vs. ITO (Supra) was taken up before another Joseph Rozario (Supra) vs. ITO (Supra) was taken up before another Joseph Rozario (Supra) vs. ITO (Supra) was taken up before another Coordinate Bench, however, either knowingly or unknowingly, these dinate Bench, however, either knowingly or unknowingly, these dinate Bench, however, either knowingly or unknowingly, these decisions of the Coordinate Benches were not brought to the notice of decisions of the Coordinate Benches were not brought to the notice of decisions of the Coordinate Benches were not brought to the notice of the learned Bench. It appears so, because, there is no reference of the learned Bench. It appears so, because, there is no reference of the learned Bench. It appears so, because, there is no reference of these decisions in case of Albert Joseph Rozario vs. ITO these decisions in case of Albert Joseph Rozario vs. ITO these decisions in case of Albert Joseph Rozario vs. ITO (Supra). Had these decisions of Coordinate Benches been brought to the notice of these decisions of Coordinate Benches been brought to the notice of these decisions of Coordinate Benches been brought to the notice of learned Bench deciding the case of Albert Joseph Rozario (Supra), a learned Bench deciding the case of Albert Joseph Rozario (Supra), a learned Bench deciding the case of Albert Joseph Rozario (Supra), a different view might have been taken. In any case of the matter, the different view might have been taken. In any case of the matter, the different view might have been taken. In any case of the matter, the point of time from which the proviso point of time from which the proviso to Section 151 of the Act would be to Section 151 of the Act would be applicable was considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in applicable was considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in applicable was considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in at least four judgments. Three of these judgments have already been at least four judgments. Three of these judgments have already been at least four judgments. Three of these judgments have already been referred to in the decision of my learned brother Accountant Member. referred to in the decision of my learned brother Accountant Member. referred to in the decision of my learned brother Accountant Member. Even in case o Even in case of Agnello Oswin Dias vs. ACIT [2014] 161 taxmann.com ACIT [2014] 161 taxmann.com 16 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, while reiterating 16 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, while reiterating 16 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, while reiterating the view that after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant the view that after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant the view that after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority in terms of Section 1 assessment year, the specified authority in terms of Section 1 assessment year, the specified authority in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Act is PCCIT, has held that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act the Act is PCCIT, has held that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act the Act is PCCIT, has held that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act having been inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2023 shall not be applicable prior to having been inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2023 shall not be applicable prior to having been inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2023 shall not be applicable prior to 01.04.2023. Meaning thereby, the proviso will not have retrospective 01.04.2023. Meaning thereby, the proviso will not have retrospective 01.04.2023. Meaning thereby, the proviso will not have retrospective effect. These decisions of the Hon' effect. These decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, being ble Jurisdictional High Court, being directly on the issue, constitute binding precedents. directly on the issue, constitute binding precedents. 12. In any case of the matter, Sections 149 and 151 of the Act have 12. In any case of the matter, Sections 149 and 151 of the Act have 12. In any case of the matter, Sections 149 and 151 of the Act have been enacted for different purposes and operate in different situations. been enacted for different purposes and operate in different situations. been enacted for different purposes and operate in different situations. While Section 149 of the While Section 149 of the Act, prescribes limitation for issuance of Act, prescribes limitation for issuance of notice u/s. 148 and 148A of the Act, Section 151 of the Act prescribes notice u/s. 148 and 148A of the Act, Section 151 of the Act prescribes notice u/s. 148 and 148A of the Act, Section 151 of the Act prescribes the timeline for the specified authority to grant sanction for Section 148 the timeline for the specified authority to grant sanction for Section 148 the timeline for the specified authority to grant sanction for Section 148 and 148A of the Act. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be obs and 148A of the Act. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be obs and 148A of the Act. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be observed that prior to insertion of proviso u/s. 151 of the Act by Finance Act, that prior to insertion of proviso u/s. 151 of the Act by Finance Act, that prior to insertion of proviso u/s. 151 of the Act by Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. 01.04.2023, the specified authority who can grant 2023 w.e.f. 01.04.2023, the specified authority who can grant 2023 w.e.f. 01.04.2023, the specified authority who can grant sanction for initiating proceedings u/s. 148A and issuing notice u/s. sanction for initiating proceedings u/s. 148A and issuing notice u/s. sanction for initiating proceedings u/s. 148A and issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act after expiry of three years from 148 of the Act after expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year is PCCIT/CCIT in terms with Section 151(ii) of the assessment year is PCCIT/CCIT in terms with Section 151(ii) of the assessment year is PCCIT/CCIT in terms with Section 151(ii) of the Act. Hence, in absence of any enabling provision u/s. 151 of the Act, Act. Hence, in absence of any enabling provision u/s. 151 of the Act, Act. Hence, in absence of any enabling provision u/s. 151 of the Act, the 3rd, 4th and 5th or 6th provisos of Section 149(1) of the Act cannot the 3rd, 4th and 5th or 6th provisos of Section 149(1) of the Act cannot the 3rd, 4th and 5th or 6th provisos of Section 149(1) of the Act cannot be read into Section 151 of th be read into Section 151 of the Act to extend the time limit u/s. 151(i) e Act to extend the time limit u/s. 151(i) of the Act.” 6.2 The Coordinate Bench (supra), while interpreting the statutory The Coordinate Bench (supra), while interpreting the statutory The Coordinate Bench (supra), while interpreting the statutory framework, has categorically held that (i) the time limits under framework, has categorically held that (i) the time limits under framework, has categorically held that (i) the time limits under section 149 cannot dilute or override the sanction requirements cannot dilute or override the sanction requirements cannot dilute or override the sanction requirements under section 151 151; (ii) sanction by an authority not prescribed ; (ii) sanction by an authority not prescribed
Shailesh Asalraj Jain 12 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025
under section 151 renders the notice invalid; and (iii) the proviso under section 151 renders the notice invalid; and (iii) the proviso under section 151 renders the notice invalid; and (iii) the proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2023 has no retrospective inserted by the Finance Act, 2023 has no retrospective inserted by the Finance Act, 2023 has no retrospective application.
6.3 Respectfully following the binding judicial precedents and t Respectfully following the binding judicial precedents and t Respectfully following the binding judicial precedents and the reasoning adopted therein, we hold that sanction obtained from the reasoning adopted therein, we hold that sanction obtained from the reasoning adopted therein, we hold that sanction obtained from the PCIT, instead of the , instead of the PCCIT / CCIT, is not in conformity with , is not in conformity with section 151(ii). Consequently, the notice issued under section . Consequently, the notice issued under section 148 . Consequently, the notice issued under section is invalid in law.
6.4 Once the very initiation of reassessment proceedings is held to Once the very initiation of reassessment proceedings is held to Once the very initiation of reassessment proceedings is held to be void for want of proper jurisdictional sanction, the consequential be void for want of proper jurisdictional sanction, the consequential be void for want of proper jurisdictional sanction, the consequential revisionary proceedings under section revisionary proceedings under section 263 cannot survive. An order cannot survive. An order passed under section 263 cannot stand independently when the passed under section 263 cannot stand independently whe passed under section 263 cannot stand independently whe foundational proceeding itself is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, foundational proceeding itself is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, foundational proceeding itself is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order passed under section the impugned order passed under section 263 is set aside. is set aside.
6.5 In view of the above conclusion, other grounds raised by the In view of the above conclusion, other grounds raised by the In view of the above conclusion, other grounds raised by the assessee assessee assessee become become become academic academic academic and and and do do do not not not require require require separate separate separate adjudication.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/02 /02/2026. Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (RAHUL CHAUDHARY (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Shailesh Asalraj Jain 13 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025 ITA No. 2559/MUM/2025
Mumbai; Dated: 24/02/2026 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file.
BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai
