“order under section 148A(d)”

Shree Sai Hospitality, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Mumbai, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2018-19 Shree Sai Hospitality Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1) C/32, Harias Dream Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor Park, Mira Bhayander Road No. 16Z, Wagle Road, Mira Road (E), Industraial Estate, Thane – Mira-Bhayandar – 400604. 401107. Pan/Gir No. Acyfs5492G (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 151 of the Act prescribes the authority whose prior approval is required before issuing notice under section 148 or passing an order under section 148A(d). The relevant provision reads as under: “151. Sanction for issue of notice. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A

Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardeepak Mahadeo Bhoir, Income Tax Officer, C/O Bharat Kumar, 317, Ward 42(1)(2), Prasad Chamber, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400 004 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Ajupb 7841H Appellant By : Shri Bharat Kumar, Ca Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr.- Dr (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2. Before We Proceed To Decide The Substantive Issue Arising For Consideration, It Is Necessary To Provide A Brief Factual Background. This Appeal Was Earlier Disposed Of By The Coordinate Bench Vide Order Dated 12.12.2024. Subsequently, Assessee Filed A Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification/Recall Of The Appellate Order On The Ground That While Deciding The Appeal, The Bench Had Failed To Decide Ground No. 2.A & 2.B. While Deciding The Miscellaneous Application, The Bench Having Found Merit In The Submissions Of Assessee, Recalled The Order For The Limited Purpose Of Deciding Ground No. 2.A & 2.B Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal. This Is How The Appeal Came Up For Hearing Before Us.

proviso to Section 149 we are therefore of the opinion that the notice under Section 148 dated 29/07/2022 is time barred. The order under Section 148A(d) as well as the notice issued under Section 148 are dated 29/07/2022 which is much after the surviving period which expired on 21/07/2022 ... Section 148A(d). 18. The said contention is fundamentally misconceived. A notice under Section 148 of the IT Act accompanied by an order under Section 148A(d) is required to be issued within the time stipulated under Section 149 of the IT Act. Section 148A(d) does not govern

Jaikishin Omprakash Pahuja, Ghatkopar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kalyan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokar

inadvertently failed to file the return of income despite entering into the said transactions. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer passed an order under section 148A(d) dated 25.03.2023 holding that it was a fit case for issuance of notice under section 148. Accordingly, notice under section 148 dated

Jignesh Natverlal Patel (Represnted by Late Natverlal Nanubhai Patel), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawaljignesh Natverlal Patel Vs Ito Ward-24(3)(1), Mumbai (Represented By Late Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Natverlal Nanubhai Patel) Mumbai-400012 401 Adarsh Building, Rto Four Bunglows, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 Pan:Aaapp1767B Appellant Respondent

void. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in issuing the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the approval of PCIT-20, Mumbai which was not the correct 'specified ... Ashish Agarwal, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC), wherein paragraph-6, the Ld. AO stated that the requisite approval for passing the order under section 148A(d) and for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act had been obtained from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-20, Mumbai

Sudhir Namdev Kadam, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsudhir Namdev Kadam, Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 501/1/A Wing Panchasheel Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Chs, Dr E Moses Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai, Mumbai, Worli S.O 400018. Pan/Gir No: Aqypk0373Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prateek Jain Respondent By Ms. Deepika Arora (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

confirming the action of the Ld. AO in issuing an invalid show-cause notice under section 148A(b) and passing the order under section 148A(d) on the same day as the notice under section 148, thereby violating the statutory requirement of granting a minimum period of 7 days

Juee Sudhir Gore, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-42(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav: A.Y. : 2017-18

prior approval from the competent authority. In response to the notice, the AO has noted that no reply was filed. Accordingly, the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 22.07.2022 in compliance of which the assessee filed her RoI. According to the assessee, the said property

Bajranglal Bhawarlal Sharma, Borivali East vs. Income Tax Officer, Kautilya Bhavan

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

which the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income had escaped assessment. The Assessee filed reply. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer passed Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act on 31/07/2022 and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31/07/2022. Before passing Order, under Section 148A(d ... regime) was treated as notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed and notice under Section 148 of the Act (new regime) was issued on 31/07/2022 after obtaining approval of the Principal Commission

Sapna Umesh Dutta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, 41(2)(5), Mumbai

Bench: passing Order, under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuing notice dated 31/07/2022, the Assessing Officer obtained approval/sanction from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. The reassessment proceedings culminated into passing of the Assessment Order, dated 23/05/2023, under Section 147 of the Act. The appeal preferred by the Assessee against the aforesaid Assessment Order was dismissed by the CIT(A) vide Order, dated 27/11/2025. Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred th

which the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income had escaped assessment. The Assessee filed reply. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer passed Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act on 31/07/2022 and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31/07/2022. Before passing Order, under Section 148A(d ... regime) was treated as notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed and notice under Section 148 of the Act (new regime) was issued on 31/07/2022 after obtaining approval of the Principal Commission