MANISH JAGDISH JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (DRP)-3, MUMBAI

ITA 1617/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was time-barred and issued in contravention of the provisions of section 151, as the proper specified authority did not grant the sanction. The court followed the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v/s DCIT, which stated that TOLA does not affect the scope of section 151 and that sanctions must be obtained according to the law existing at the time of sanction. The approval obtained was from Principal CIT-8, which is not the specified authority for cases where more than three years have elapsed. Therefore, the notice and the subsequent reassessment proceedings were considered void ab initio and bad in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the final assessment order under section 147 r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core issue revolves around the validity of the reopening of assessment, specifically the issuance of a notice under section 148 after the expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year 2017-18. The escapement of income was alleged to be Rs. 43,32,000, which is below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold for issuing such a notice beyond three years without specific conditions.

What were the issues?

The primary issue is the validity of the reopening of assessment under section 147 due to the notice under section 148 being issued beyond the prescribed time limit and without proper sanction from the specified authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144C(13),Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149(1)(b),Section 151,Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R Singh/Akshay Pawar
For Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT DR

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 23/03/2024, passed under section 147 r/w section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), pursuant to the directions dated 20/02/2024 issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (“learned DRP”), for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: –

“1.Reopening of assessment is bad in law:

Manish Jagdish Joshi.

1.

The learned CIT(DRP-3) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment vide n

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →