← All Phrases

“sanctioning authority”

ReassessmentSection 151Section 151426 judgments

The decision most relied on for sanctioning authority is CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (64 Taxmann.com 313), cited in 340 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on sanctioning authority

CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd.
64 Taxmann.com 313 · 2015 · Supreme Court
340
citing judgments

A mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under Section 151, made without independent application of mind, vitiates and renders the entire reassessment proceedings invalid. Such approvals, often indicated by brief, unreasoned endorsements, lead to the quashing of the reopening of assessment.

Madhya Pradesh in CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 390 · 2015 · High Court
188
citing judgments

A sanction for issuing a notice under section 148 is invalid if the sanctioning authority grants approval mechanically, merely recording 'Yes, I am satisfied' without proper application of mind to the reasons for reassessment. The authority must demonstrate proper consideration to fulfill the statutory obligation under section 151.

CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd.
345 ITR 223 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the sanction required under Section 151 is obtained mechanically, without independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority, or is based on borrowed satisfaction.

(P.) Ltd. v. ITO
221 ITR 538 · 1996 · Supreme Court
125
citing judgments

The sanction of a specified authority under Section 151 is a mandatory procedural check before issuing a notice under Section 148. This procedural safeguard aims to prevent mechanical reopening of assessments and harassment of the assessee.

PCIT v. NC Cables Ltd.
391 ITR 11 · 2017 · High Court
104
citing judgments

Approval for reassessment under Section 151 requires the approving authority to apply its mind and form an opinion, not merely endorse it mechanically. Additions under Section 68 cannot be made based on suspicion alone and require conclusive evidence.

Arjun Singh v. ADIT
246 ITR 363 · 2000 · High Court
102
citing judgments

For a valid reassessment, the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147. A mechanical endorsement like 'I am satisfied' without considering the material amounts to non-application of mind and invalidates the sanction under Section 151.

Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
457 ITR 647 · 2023 · High Court
95
citing judgments

The amended Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, governing the sanction for reassessment proceedings under Sections 148 and 148A, applies to cases initiated under the new reassessment regime. The specified authority for granting such sanction becomes the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT
346 ITR 443 · 2012 · High Court
89
citing judgments

The reassessment proceedings are invalid if the required sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act is not obtained from the statutorily designated authority or if the approval is granted mechanically without due satisfaction. Approval by a higher authority cannot substitute the satisfaction of the authority specified in Section 151.

Judgments citing sanctioning authority

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1434/DEL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessment- Tribunal upheld, assessee's cross- objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-condition for issuing notice u/s 147/148-Held, Section 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize reassessment

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1433/DEL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

ITA No.1435, 1434, 1433 & 1432/Del/2024 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Sunita Bhardwaj, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(1), New Delhi

ITA 1432/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sunita Bhardwaj, Vs Acit, 1/2, Taj Apartments, Circle-63(1), R.K.Puram, Sector-12, Delhi Delhi-110022. Pan-Ahfpb1928E Appellant Respondent

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessment- Tribunal upheld, assessee's cross- objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-condition for issuing notice u/s 147/148-Held, Section 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize reassessment

S C Jhonson Products Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1470/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

cross- objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no Page | 21 ITA No.1850/Del/2019, 1470 &1122/Del/2020 proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-condition for issuing notice u/s 147/148-Held, Section 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize

S.C., Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addi. CIT Special Range-8, New Delhi

ITA 1122/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

assessment- Tribunal upheld, assessee's cross objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-condition for issuing notice u/s 147/148-Held, Section 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize reassessment

S.C., Johnson Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon Haryana vs. DCIT Circle 7(1), New Delhi

ITA 1850/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80I

assessment- Tribunal upheld, assessee's cross objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-condition for issuing notice u/s 147/148-Held, Section 151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was competent authority to authorize reassessment

Atul Bhanudas Shinde, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 970/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.970/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Atul Bhanudas Shinde, V The Income Tax Officer, Shetphal Haveli, Dhenu Nagar, S Ward-14(5), Pune. Bawada S.O, Shetphal Haveli, Pune – 413103. Maharashtra. Pan: Ectps5299N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarang Gudhate –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Form No.36 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 14.02.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act, For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 20.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68

that the Assessment Year ("AY") is 2018-19 and, therefore, since more than three years have expired from the end of the assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says

Zuber Khan Iqbal Khal Pathan, Dhule vs. ITO Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 757/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.756 & 757/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 Zuber Khan Iqbalkhan Pathan, V The Income Tax Officer, Karim Bidi Compound, Wadjai S Ward-1, Dhule. Road, Dhule – 424001. Maharashtra. Pan: Abrpi3068E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore Phadke –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni –Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2016-17 Both Dated 29.04.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders Under Section 147 Of The Act, For A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2016-17 Respectively; Both Dated 19.05.2023. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

that the Assessment Year ("AY") is 2018-19 and, therefore, since more than three years have expired from the end of the assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says

Zuber Khan Iqbal Khan Pathan, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 756/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.756 & 757/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 Zuber Khan Iqbalkhan Pathan, V The Income Tax Officer, Karim Bidi Compound, Wadjai S Ward-1, Dhule. Road, Dhule – 424001. Maharashtra. Pan: Abrpi3068E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore Phadke –Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni –Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2016-17 Both Dated 29.04.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Orders Under Section 147 Of The Act, For A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2016-17 Respectively; Both Dated 19.05.2023. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

that the Assessment Year ("AY") is 2018-19 and, therefore, since more than three years have expired from the end of the assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says

Sunidhi Securities & Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 5938/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Girish Agrawal, Am Sunidhi Securities & Finance The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, 4(2)(1), Mumbai 8Th Floor, Unit-1, Kalpataru Inspire, Room No. 642, Aaykar Bhavan, M. Vs. Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Santacruz K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. (East), Mumbai – 400055 Pan/Gir No. Aadcs1657D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Shashi Bekal : Shri. Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of D.C.I.T. Of Reopening The Assessment Merely Based On Reason To Suspect & Not Reason To Believe & Is Therefore Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of D.C.I.T. Treating The Trading In Steel Exchange India Limited Through Recognized Stock Exchange As Bogus Trading Loss. Sunidhi Securities & Finance Limited

For Appellant: Shri. Shashi Bekal
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 250

with the provision of Section 151, where the old provision of Section 151(2) of the Act would be applicable, in which case the sanctioning authority is the Joint Commissioner and not the PCIT. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ... other hand controverted the said fact and stated that as the same falls under the old regime, the ld. PCIT was a sanctioning authority and that there was no infirmity in the sanction obtained for issuance of notice u/s. 148 as per the provisions of Section

Aamya Resources LLP, Andheri East vs. ITO, Ward 24(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4423/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kantvs. Ito, Ward 24(1)(1) Aamya Resources Llp Piramal Chamber, 1, Wilson House, Old Mumbai – 400012. Nagardas Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400069. Pan/Gir No. Abcfa4651A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satish Aggarwal (Virtually Appear) Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 11.10.2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre / Cit(A), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. Although, Assessee Had Raised Number Of Grounds In The Present Appeal But At The Outset Ld. Ar Pressed Ground No.4 Which Is Legal In Question & It Goes To The Roots Of The Case. Therefore, We Have Decided To Adjudicate This Ground Firstly, Ground No. 4, Which Is Reproduced Herein Below:

Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250Section 3(1)

Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has clearly held that in cases where TOLA was not applicable as in the case of the assessee, the sanctioning authority as per the new regime under section 151(ii) of the Act, would be applicable and notices issued after obtaining sanction from an authority

Joginder Singh, Village Bajghera vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Gurugram

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 3872/DEL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2015-16 Joginder Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Village Bajghera, Gurgaon, New Delhi Haryana -122017 (Pan: Cvzps1330M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Aneja, Adv. & Shri NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

issued after 3 years from the end of relevant year i.e. on 31.03.2019 and therefore as per relevant provisions u/s. 151(ii) the sanctioning authority has to be PCCIT and not the PCIT. This view has been fortified by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case ... order as well as the notice are issued on 20th July, 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 proviso to Section 151 of the Act has been

Income Tax Officer, Ward-20(3), Delhi, New Delhi vs. Rmp Holdings Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1002/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Rmp Holdings Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 138-C, Block -B Group -4 Dilshad Garden New Delhi Pan No.Aaacr5533N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) while allowing the appeal of the assessee, on the issue of sanctioning authority u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has failed to appreciate that the Pr. CIT was the specified authority u/s 151 to grant

Suresh Kumar Mahavir Prasad Beswal, Thane vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5156/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

well as the notice are issued on 7 th 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 effect

Geeta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2, Rohtak

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 3716/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singha.Yr. : 2016-17 Geeta Ito, Ward-2, Rohtak B-50, Lgf, South Extension-Ii, Vs. New Delhi – 49 (Pan: Aaypg9406A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151

eyes of the law and the same is mechanical and has been done without independent reasoning and application of mind by the sanctioning authority. 2. Briefly stated facts, are that assessee has filed her return of income at Rs. 5,72,850/- on 16.8.2021 in response to the notice

Shreeji Developers, Vadodara vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat at Vadodara, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 952/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
Section 144Section 147Section 184(5)Section 263Section 28

held to be invalid by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 17-06-2025 by holding that Sanctioning Authority for reopening of assessment is beyond 3 years period is PCCIT, whereas the Sanctioning Authority in this case was given by PCIT which is invalid in law. Thus ... period. Hence the Specified Authority under clause (u) of Section 151 namely PCCIT or Principal Director or Chief Commissioner or Director General are the Sanctioning Authority required to approve the reopening of assessment. Whereas in this case, approval was obtained from the PCIT-3, Ahmedabad

Rsd Containers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1320/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

case of Kusum Healthcare P ltd. v/s DCIT (W.P. (C) No. 383/2023 vide order dated 05.03.2025) wherein the issue was also about sanctioning authority for issuing notice u/s 148. In this judgment the Hon`ble Court has stated as under :- “38. It would therefore be wholly incorrect to read

Sunita Ramesh Dhanani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3443/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Sunita Ramesh Dhanani Ito – 22(3)(6), Mumbai 9 Alankarchs, Senapatibapat Marg Vs Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Mahim (West), Mumbai-400016. Parel, Mumbai – 400012. [Pan No. Ajapd9146R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)

Commissioner or Director General. However, the assessing officer obtained approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr CIT), who was not a competent sanctioning authority as per section 151(ii) of amended provision. The assessing officer was required to obtain approval / sanction from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income

Packswell Combine Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 234/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarpackswell Combine Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner 602, 6Th Floor, Amrit ‘A’ Of Income Tax Officer, Carter Road, Khar Danda, Central Circle 6(4), Khar (W), Mumbai- 400052 Mumbai Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacp3076C (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

21/05/2021 the Act as per old regime (deemed to be show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act) 3 Packwell Combine Pvt. Ltd. Sanctioning authority u/s Range 5(1), Mumbai 151 for the above- mentioned notice u/s 148 (old regime) Date of Issue 28/05/2022 Letter/deemed notice u/s 148A ... Appellant Date of Response filed by 11/06/2022 the Appellant to the above issue letter. Date of Order u/s 148A(d) 28/07/2022 of the Act Sanctioning Authority of Pr. CIT Central -3, Mumbai order issued u/s 148A(d) (Under new regime) Date of Notice u/s 148 of 29/07/2022

Albert Joseph Rozario, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int. Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1168/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR
Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

sanction granted by PCIT in these 12 cases after the end of 3 years from end of the assessment year is invalid as the sanctioning authority was PCCIT and not PCIT. It was submitted that both these decisions have also relied further on the decision in the case of Siemens ... before the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court that since more than three years have elapsed from the end of the AY. 2018-19, the sanctioning authority u/s. 151(ii) should be Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and not Principal Commissioner of Income 26 Tax and reference was drawn