“sanctioning authority”

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)

statutory mandate contained in section 151(ii), where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the sanctioning authority must be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or equivalent authority, and not the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus, the approval granted ... order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The provisio to Section 151 has been inserted only with

SHAIRUL IMPEX,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(1)), MUMBAI

escaped in the present matter. Accordingly notice\nunder section 148 was issued on 19.04.2021 after recording reasons along with\nprior approval of the sanctioning authority. Subsequently, the procedure of\nreopening was initiated, as per amended regime following the decision of Union\n3\nITA No.6613/Mum/2025\nShairul Impex\nof India vs. Ashish

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

both have been issued beyond a period of three years. 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided Therefore, the sanctioning authority

ASHABEN BABULAL GALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed on legal aspect

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashabenbabulal Gala, National Faceless Centre, C-536, Panbai Nagar, Nfac, New Delhi, Shreeprastha 2Ndroad, Near Ito – 41(4)(1), Vs. Viva Super Market, Kautilyabhavan, Mumbai. Nalasopara (West), Umrale, Palghar, Maharashtra - 401203. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afzpg 0653 H Present For: Assessee By : Shri. Vikrant Vora Revenue By : Shri. Surendra Mohan, (Sr.D.R) Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per :Narender Kumar Choudhry:

approval from the Range Head i.e., Range-26(1), Mumbai and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax {Pr. CIT} – 17, Mumbai but not from the Sanctioning Authority i.e. Pr. CCIT, as prescribed in Section 151(ii) of the Act, and therefore violated such provisions of law, which would entail quashing ... order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April, 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCIT as provided under Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 has been inserted only with

M/S.WELLKNOWN POLYESTERS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

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

Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46, wherein it has been held that the sanctioning authority has to be in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the Act, based on the new provisions u/s 148A