“order under section 148A(d)”

Mohammad Umar Abdul Hasan Khan (Through Legal Heir Wife Haseena Bano), Boiser vs. Ward 1, Palghar

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

deceased Assessee had registered herself as Representative Assessee on 12/08/2022. On perusal of the Assessment Order we find that (a) Order under Section 148A(d) was passed on 15/03/2024, (b) notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 15/03/2024, and (c) Assessment Order was passed on 03/12/2024

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Jinalben Bhavikbhai Vora, Gujrat

Bench: the expiry of 6 years from the end of Assessment Year 2013-2014). Subsequently, in compliance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India VS. Ashish Agarwal 444 ITR 1 (SC) [04/05/2022], communication, dated 26/05/2022, was sent to the Assessee intimating that the aforesaid notice issued under Section 148 of the Act (under old regime) would be treated as the show-cause notice issued in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act (under new regime introduced by the Fi

basis of which the Assessing Officer had formed a belief that income had escaped assessment. The Assessee filed reply on 16/06/2022. Thereafter, order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 29/07/2022. This was followed by issuance of notice on 29/07/2022 under Section ... No.23/Mum/2026 Assessment Year 2013-2014 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 on 24/07/2022, and the same was followed by issuance of notice dated 29/06/2022, under Section

Shailesh Asalraj Jain, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai 20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

under the amended reassessment regime information, proceedings under the amended reassessment regime information, proceedings under the amended reassessment regime were initiated. An order under section 148A(d) was passed, followed were initiated. An order under section was passed, followed by issuance of notice under section ... limitation available to the AO for passing an proviso, if the period of limitation available to the AO for passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is less than seven days, such order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is less than seven days, such order

M/S.Wellknown Polyesters Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under section ... required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority u/s 151 of the Act under the new regime before passing an order under section 148A(d) and issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act. 5.3. The appropriate authority who could sanction the said notice, issued beyond a period

ITO-23(3)(6).Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Ward 23(3)(6) Har Narayan Building, Vs. Mumbai Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Income Tax Officer M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Ward 23(3)(6) 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Mumbai Vs. Har Narayan Building, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Arise Out Of Two Separate Orders Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Very Same Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. However, While Assessee’S Appeal Arises Out Of Original Assessment Proceeding, The Revenue’S Appeal Arises Out Of Reassessment Proceeding U/S. 147 Of The Act. M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading 2. At The Outset, We Will Deal With Assessee’S Appeal, Being Ita No.5754/Mum/2025. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, The Assessee Has Challenged The Decision Of Ld. First Appellate Authority In Remanding The Issue Back To The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) For De Novo Adjudication. Whereas, In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged The Non-Adjudication Of The Ground Relating To The Applicability Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. Since, The Issues Are Overlapping, We Will Deal With Them Concurrently.

Officer was required to obtain prior approval of the 'specified authority' according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or for issuing a notice under Section 148. (b) Under the new regime, if income escaping assessment is more than Rupees 50 lakhs ... relevant Assessment Year (in the present case A.Y. 2017-18) expired on 30.06.2021, whereas Respondent No.1, despite passing order under section 148A(d) on 18.08.2022, and issuing notice under section 148 on 23.08.2022 [in respect of Assessment Year 2017-18], has obtained approval of Respondent No.2

M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT, Circle 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarm/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Income Tax Officer 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Ward 23(3)(6) Har Narayan Building, Vs. Mumbai Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Assessee) : (Revenue) & Income Tax Officer M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading Ward 23(3)(6) 2Nd Floor, 61/63, Mumbai Vs. Har Narayan Building, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aasfr 7707 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) Appellant By : Shri Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Arise Out Of Two Separate Orders Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi, Pertaining To The Very Same Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2017-18. However, While Assessee’S Appeal Arises Out Of Original Assessment Proceeding, The Revenue’S Appeal Arises Out Of Reassessment Proceeding U/S. 147 Of The Act. M/S. Rajeshwar Bullion Trading 2. At The Outset, We Will Deal With Assessee’S Appeal, Being Ita No.5754/Mum/2025. In Ground Nos. 1 & 2, The Assessee Has Challenged The Decision Of Ld. First Appellate Authority In Remanding The Issue Back To The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short) For De Novo Adjudication. Whereas, In Ground No. 3, The Assessee Has Challenged The Non-Adjudication Of The Ground Relating To The Applicability Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. Since, The Issues Are Overlapping, We Will Deal With Them Concurrently.

Officer was required to obtain prior approval of the 'specified authority' according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or for issuing a notice under Section 148. (b) Under the new regime, if income escaping assessment is more than Rupees 50 lakhs ... relevant Assessment Year (in the present case A.Y. 2017-18) expired on 30.06.2021, whereas Respondent No.1, despite passing order under section 148A(d) on 18.08.2022, and issuing notice under section 148 on 23.08.2022 [in respect of Assessment Year 2017-18], has obtained approval of Respondent No.2

Ramesh Purshottam Modi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Purshottam Ito Circle 22(1) Modi Income Tax 303, Modi House, Linking Vs. Department, Road, Khar West, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400 052 Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Parel, Mumbai 0 400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aahpm2793F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar A/W Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

judgment, it was contended that in that case the petitioner was not furnished with complete information and the impugned order under section 148A(d) was passed without providing material relied upon by the Department. According to the learned DR, the factual matrix in the present case is distinguishable ... information and material forming the basis of the allegation at the stage of section 148A(b) vitiates the proceedings, and that the order under section 148A(d) cannot cure such foundational defects. 31. It was pointed out that in the cited decision, the Hon’ble Court quashed the proceedings