Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
148, 148A, 250, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI JAGADISH
O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
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.
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.
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.
Thus, in the above analyzations, the notice dated 15.07.2022 u/s 148 of the Act, along with the assessment order is quashed.
In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.01.2026.