“section 148A”

Anthonette Joaquim Anthony, Mumbai vs. ITO Int Tax Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

perusal of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we find that the Petitioner challenged the notice issued under section 148A(b) as also the order passed under section 148A(d) leading to the issuance of the notice under section ... dated 23/03/2022 under section 151A of the Act, where under it was mandated to follow the faceless mechanism while resorting to the procedures/action under section 148A and also while issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. In support of its contention, the Petitioner placed reliance upon the decision

Hariprasad Vedasubramanian, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT

Devanand Amarnath Parkar, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(4)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Bandra East

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the show cause notice issued under section 148A(b), the order passed under section 148A(d), and the consequential notice issued under section 148 were all issued by an officer who did not have

Bhushan Vasant Parelkar, Mumbai vs. Ward 41(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Income Tax Officer, A-204 Saikripa, Navghar Ward 41(2)(1), Road, Mulund East S.O, Vs Mumbai Mumbai - 400081 (Pan: Akdpp6556D) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1079866363(1), Dated 22.08.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ito, Ward-41(2)(1),, U/S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 31.05.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao Of Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Although The Reopening Is Time Barred & Hence Bad In Law. Bhushan Vasant Parelkar Ay 2013-14

Counsel for the assessee: Sr.No. Event Date/days 1 Original notice under section 148 which 31.05.2021 is deemed to be notice under section 148A(b) 2 Last day to issue notice under section 148 as 30.06.2021 extended by TOLA Therefore, surviving period left as per 3 31 days the decision ... shall be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation as per this section and the notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A in such case shall be deemed to have been issued on the 31st day of March of such financial year:] Provided also that

Nevin H. Bharwani, Mumbai vs. ITO (Int Tax) Ward-1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailnevin H. Bharwani, 5Th Floor, Noor-E-Rehmat, 50 B.J. Road, Bandra West, Mumbai ............... Appellant Pan : Alrpb8270H V/S Income Tax Officer (International Taxation), Ward – 1(2)(1), Room No.530D, 5Th Floor, ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 Assessee By : Shri Asif Karmali Revenue By : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.Dr

failed to appreciate that the Income tax Officer (International tax) 1(2) - 1, Mumbai ("the J.A.O.") erred in - - passing the order under section 148A(d) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) dated 21st March 2024; - and issuing notice under section ... submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order passed by the J.A.O under section 148A(d) of the Act as well as the notice issued undersection 148 of the Act by J.A.O. are both bad in law andliable to be quashed

Sudhir Motiram Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalsudhir Motiram Patil C/O Hukumchand Jain, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Kamala Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400013 ............... Appellant Pan: Avvpp1813G V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, ……………… Respondent Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421301 Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

original notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 18/05/2021 was deemed to be issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. Vide show cause notice dated 27/05/2022, the information and material relied upon by the Revenue were provided to the assessee and time was granted to the assessee ... respond to the same within two weeks in terms of provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act. 6. Rejecting the objections filed by the assessee, an order under section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 26/07/2022 declaring that it is a fit case 4 for issuance

Akshay Deepak Talim, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

made no addition thereon, exceeded jurisdiction by making additions on grounds beyond the scope of the said notice, without issuing a fresh notice under Section 148A(b) for the alleged escapement. The assessment is therefore liable to be quashed. GROUND NO. 4: Addition U/s 69A is contrary ... have escaped assessment, is less than Rs.50 lakh. By referring to the facts of the case, the learned AR submitted that notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued to the assessee on the basis of information received from the office of the Sub-Registrar regarding the purchase

Govind Mansharam Dingwa, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

goes without saying that providing information to the Petitioner, without furnishing the material based upon which the section 148A(b) of the Act totally illusive and ephemeral. The fact that the material also was required to be supplied can very well be gauged from the clear directions issued ... which opinion was formed by the Assessing Officer needs to be disclosed to the petitioner in contemplation of the provisions as provided under Section 148A(a), (b) and (c). (c) Chotanagpur Diocesson Trust Asson. v. UOI 296 [Taxman 16 (Jha HC)] ...it is necessary to clarify that though conducting

Govind Mansharam Dingwa, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

goes without saying that providing information to the Petitioner, without furnishing the material based upon which the section 148A(b) of the Act totally illusive and ephemeral. The fact that the material also was required to be supplied can very well be gauged from the clear directions issued ... which opinion was formed by the Assessing Officer needs to be disclosed to the petitioner in contemplation of the provisions as provided under Section 148A(a), (b) and (c). (c) Chotanagpur Diocesson Trust Asson. v. UOI 296 [Taxman 16 (Jha HC)] ...it is necessary to clarify that though conducting

Navgrahaa Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarnavgrahaa Jewels Private Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner 7(1)(1), Unit No.341 & 342, Pragati Mumbai Industrial Esrate, N. M. Joshi Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400020 Marg, Lower Parel East, Mumbai-400011 Pan: Aaecn0220G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi, Adv., Ms. Vinita Nara Adv Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2013-14, Date Of Order 11.11.2024. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Assessment

Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC), such notices issued between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, were deemed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). Accordingly,an order under Section 148A(d) was passed on July 29, 2022, after providing opportunity, and a fresh notice under Section ... period of 05 days, as contemplated in the judgment in Rajeev Bansal (supra). The assessee submitted its reply in compliance with the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act on 26.05.2022 (APB Page 15). Thereafter, the final notice under section 148 of the Act was issued

Jet Speed Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Bhavana Suresh Chauhan, Borivali West vs. Ward42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Bhavana Suresh Chauhan Ito, Ward-42(1)(1), Mumbai 703, Kguru Residency, 1 Babai Naka, Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Dharamdas Marg, Borivali West, Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400097. [Pan No. Adipc1169K] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

authority, the designation of approving / competent authority is not mentioned in the notice under section 148 as well as in the order passed under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148A(b) does not contain either physical or digital signature of assessing officer, though digital signature is available

ITO 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ska Sales Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

regime "after following the procedure as required u/s148- A." Although this quote waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval u/s148A(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 ... Court, though it had waived off the requirement obtaining prior approval u/s148A(a) and Section 148Ab, it did not waive the requirement for section 148A(d) and Section 148. The issue in this caseis not on the aspect of "when" for the procedural compliance for issuance of notice u/s148

Bysol Enterprises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire orders and notices issued under section 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") are in contravention of the provisions of section 151A of the Act and Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.3.2022 which makes the said notices ... interest of justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed under section 148A(d) and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act are without proper sanction under section 151 of the Act making the same illegal and which deserves