POONAM MANOJ AGRAWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-25(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6018/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 January 2026AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the issuance of notices and orders under Section 148, particularly after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, without the mandatory sanction from the Ld. PCCIT, violated statutory provisions. This violation was confirmed by judicial pronouncements.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order of the NFAC for AY 2016-17. A notice under Section 148 was initially issued, but subsequent notices and orders were passed without proper sanction from the Ld. PCCIT as mandated by Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were validly passed without the mandatory sanction from the Ld. PCCIT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 250,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Shri Saiprasad K. Ghosh, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, SR. D.R
Hearing: 07.01.2026Pronounced: 07.01.2026

O R D E R

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18.07.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2016-17.

2.

In this case, the notice dated 07.05.2021 under Section 148 of the Act was initially issued under the old Act, which was treated as deemed notice under Section 148 (A)(b) of the Act, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported {[2024] 167 taxmann.com 70} by taking sanction, as per old provisions of the Act, as applicable thereto.

3.

However later on, the orders/notices under Section 148 (A) (b),148 (A) (d) and 148 of the Act dated 26.05.2022, 15.07.2022 and 15.07.2022 respectively were passed/issued by taking sanction from the Ld. PCIT but not from the Ld. PCCIT, as mandated in the provisions of Section 151 of the Act, in the cases reopened after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as the case under consideration and thus the AO violated such provisions, which are mandatory, as also clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case referred to above and recently by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Ramesh Bachulal Mehta vs. ITO (177) taxmann.com 606 (Bombay High Court), wherein ultimately the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act has been quashed in the similar facts and circumstances, as involved in this case.

4.

Thus, in the above analyzations, the notice dated 15.07.2022 u/s 148 of the Act, along with the assessment order is quashed.

5.

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.01.2026.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →