← All Phrases

“specified authority”

ReassessmentSection 151Section 1511,163 judgments

The decision most relied on for specified authority is (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (221 ITR 538), cited in 125 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on specified authority

(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.

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.

CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah
299 ITR 305 · 2008 · High Court
80
citing judgments

During a search operation, the authorized officer recording a statement under Section 132(4) must fully explain Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) to the assessee, particularly the requirement to specify the manner of earning undisclosed income, for a valid claim of penalty immunity. Income not declared or advance tax not paid proportionately before the search date is treated as undisclosed, thereby disallowing advance tax benefits.

Bar Association v. State of U P
6 SCC 267 · 2024 · Supreme Court
70
citing judgments

The Supreme Court, when exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, is not bound by the procedural requirements of law. This power allows the Court to issue directions that may modify or waive certain procedural mandates, such as those related to reassessment notices.

Dass Khanna v. ITO
460 ITR 546 · 2024 · High Court
41
citing judgments

The authority required to grant prior approval under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act for reassessment proceedings varies based on the applicable time limit for reassessment, as limitation is inextricably intertwined with the rank of the specified approving authority.

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
463 ITR 702 · 2024 · High Court
32
citing judgments

The validity of sanction for issuing orders under section 148A(d) and notices under section 148 must be tested with reference to the amended section 151. If sanction is not granted by an authority specified under section 151(ii), such orders and notices are invalid and liable to be quashed.

Vikas Gupta v. Union of India
142 Taxmann.com 253 · 2022 · High Court
27
citing judgments

The signing of a notice or document by the specified authority is a mandatory requirement under section 282A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and cannot be treated as an empty formality. Approval under section 151 requires the signature, name, and designation of the specified authority.

Judgments citing specified authority

Dileep K Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT CC-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 152/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

treatment and thus prevents bias, prejudice and arbitrariness. It also prevents and avoids inconsistent and divergent views. The power of approval to the specified authority i.e., Superior authority has been envisaged with the objectives that no illegality or biasness, to either of the sides i.e., the assessee or the Revenue

Dileep K Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT CC-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 151/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

treatment and thus prevents bias, prejudice and arbitrariness. It also prevents and avoids inconsistent and divergent views. The power of approval to the specified authority i.e., Superior authority has been envisaged with the objectives that no illegality or biasness, to either of the sides i.e., the assessee or the Revenue

Dileep K Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT CC-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 150/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

treatment and thus prevents bias, prejudice and arbitrariness. It also prevents and avoids inconsistent and divergent views. The power of approval to the specified authority i.e., Superior authority has been envisaged with the objectives that no illegality or biasness, to either of the sides i.e., the assessee or the Revenue

Dileep K Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 149/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

treatment and thus prevents bias, prejudice and arbitrariness. It also prevents and avoids inconsistent and divergent views. The power of approval to the specified authority i.e., Superior authority has been envisaged with the objectives that no illegality or biasness, to either of the sides i.e., the assessee or the Revenue

Dileep K Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-31, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 148/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

treatment and thus prevents bias, prejudice and arbitrariness. It also prevents and avoids inconsistent and divergent views. The power of approval to the specified authority i.e., Superior authority has been envisaged with the objectives that no illegality or biasness, to either of the sides i.e., the assessee or the Revenue

Geeta Sharma, Sunam vs. ITO, Sunam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 491/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Prem Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 149

Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under sub-section ( 1), conduct such inquiries, as he deems fit, to obtain prior approval of the specified authority. Section 149 – Time Limit for Notice (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year – ( a) if three years

Pritesh Ratanshi Ved, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1618/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Shashank Ojha
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(i) has extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval; e. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime ... time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) has extended time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval; 9 f. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) will extend

Ratan N Motwani (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5532/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt.Renu Jauhri7 (A.Y.2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad- CIT
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 250Section 68

148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the approval of the approval of PCIT-19, Mumbai which was not the correct 'specified authority' as per Section 151 who should have approved it when three years have already elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year ... also the issue of notice beyond limitation. Out of these, we first take up the issue relating to the mandatory approval by the ‘specified authority’. 4. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the ld. AO obtained approval of PCIT-19 Mumbai as specified authority

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Visakhapatnam vs. Quality Steel Shoppe Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the Cross Objection No

ITA 454/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Viz/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Quality Steel Shoppe Ward-2(1), Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaacq1115D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 18/Viz/2024 (In आ.अपी.सं /454/Viz/2024) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Badicala Yadagiri
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is justified quashing the notice u/s 148 on the ground that the assessing officer did not take approval from specified authority in terms of S.151 of the Act. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.4 ... facts of the case by passing the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 28/04/2022 without the approval of the specified authority as contemplated under section 151 of the Act. Also, we find that the CIT(A) found favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee company regarding

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore vs. Venkata Ramanamma Sakamuri, Nellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed

ITA 482/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

within the time limits prescribed by the Act, with the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati, being Specified Authority u/s. 151 of the Act? (iii) Whether the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in violating the Rule 46 of Income Tax Rules ... show cause notice u/s 148A(b) was issued within three years from the end of the relevant A.Y. 2018-19 and the specified Authority is the Pr. CIT, Tirupati only and not the Pr. CCIT/CCIT as mentioned in the order. Hence the order of the CIT(A) in quashing notice

Rajbir Singh, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3104/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Rajbir Singh Vs. Acit 1625A, The Magnolia, Dlf Central Circle-19, City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Khandewalan, Haryana New Delhi Pan: Aaups2176H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Ca Revenue By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 Order

Section 13ASection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 29A

order was issued with the approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E)] on an assumption that the CIT(E) was a specified authority under the provisions of Section 151 o f the Act . 8 . The AO issued a notice dated 29 .07 .2022 under Section ... Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no such authority, by Chie f Commissioner or Director General. The determination o f the specified authority for grant of approval under Section 151 o f the A ct depend s on whether the notice under Section

Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), Delhi vs. Lng Agricom Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1758/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayita Nos. 1758 & 1753/Del/2025 (Ayrs 2015-16 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. Aakash Ojha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 149

Counsel for the assessee referred the provisions of Section 151 of the Act which reads as under:- “151. Sanction for issue of notice – Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be – (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years

Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(1), Delhi vs. Lng Agricom Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1753/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayita Nos. 1758 & 1753/Del/2025 (Ayrs 2015-16 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. Aakash Ojha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 149

Counsel for the assessee referred the provisions of Section 151 of the Act which reads as under:- “151. Sanction for issue of notice – Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be – (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years

Raju Saha, Barasat, Twenty Four Parganas North vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle - 61, Kolkata

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

ITA 2056/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2056/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raju Saha,……………………………….……...……Appellant Swapanapuri, Duttapukur Hatkhola, Barasat, 24-Parganas (N), Kolkata-743248, West Bengal [Pan:Awops1579E] -Vs.- Dcit/Acit,…………………………………….……..Respondent Circle-61, Kolkata, Office Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 192Section 270ASection 80C

issued to the assesssee after issuance of order under section 148A(d) of the 2 Raju Saha Act with the prior approval of the specified authority, but the assessee did not make any compliance. As the assessee did not furnish any information, the assessee was again requested to furnish

Guiness Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1633/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Guiness Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd..….……………….……….……….……Appellant 3Rd Floor, Baid Property, 10, Canning Street, Burra Bazar, Kol-1.. [Pan: Aabck1388B] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata….……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 13, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee 2. Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 On 30.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil. The Said Return Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Reason That The Assessee Is The Beneficiary Of Credit Of Rs.1,28,38,232/- From Penny Stock Company M/S Steel Exchange Ltd. Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Reopened By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 14.07.2022. The Assessing Officer Passed An Ex Parte Order U/S 147 Guiness Finance & Leasing Pvt. Ltd R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 29.05.2023 Adding Rs.1,28,38,391/- To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

given an interpretation that is consistent with the object and purpose of the Income-tax Act. …… 74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old regime: (i) If income escaping ... jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section

Bharti Mukesh Chandarana, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Int. Tax) Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground No

ITA 4972/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Bharti Mukesh Chandarana, Income Tax Officer Ward No. 64, Balasinor Society, S.V. Road, Vs 2(1)(1) Mumbai, Room No. 618, 6Th Floor, Kautilya Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067, Maharashtra Bhawan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, [Pan No. Aacpc 4520F] Int Tax Ward, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153(2)Section 253

issued beyond the period of three years from the end of relevant assessment year. Thus, the AO was required to seek approval of the specified authority under section 151(ii) of the Act. The so-called approval of CCIT, Mumbai-(6) under section 151 of the Act issued ... prepared on 31 March 2024 only, which has not been signed by the specified authority. Thus, there was no application of mind by the specified authority and based on the satisfaction note attached to the draft approval. Hence, notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the draft assessment

Creative Realmart Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 457/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Filing Of Appeal In Form-35 & Appellant Has Not Done Any Non-Compliance As Per Section 249(4)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Kedawat, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 249(4)(a)Section 249(4)(b)

That the Ld. Lower Authority has initiated the proceedings and sound the notice under section 148 without obtaining the prior approval of the specified authority under the provisions of the Act, which is illegal, void and bad in law. 5. That the Ld Lower Authority has wrongly, arbitrarily and illegally

Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana Punjab vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Ludhiana

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 596/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.530/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jcit (In Situ) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Ludhiana – 141001 Kohara, Jandiali Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.596/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-1 बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Kohara, Jandiali Ludhiana – 141001 Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) A/W Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) a/w Dr
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

raised another pertinent legal issue to contend that the case was reopened beyond three years and the same is without requisite approval of the specified authority. The specified authority, as per statutory requirement of Sec. 151(ii), would be Ld. Pr. CCIT whereas the approval has been taken ... from PCIT-1, Ludhiana which is not the specified authority in the case of the assessee as per the provisions of Sec. 151(ii) of the Act. To support, the same, reference has been made to various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in Situ) Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 530/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.530/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jcit (In Situ) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Ludhiana – 141001 Kohara, Jandiali Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.596/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S Sharmanji Yarns Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-1 बनाम/ Village Lakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Kohara, Jandiali Ludhiana – 141001 Vs. Ludhiana - 141112 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahcs-6629-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) A/W Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) a/w Dr
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

raised another pertinent legal issue to contend that the case was reopened beyond three years and the same is without requisite approval of the specified authority. The specified authority, as per statutory requirement of Sec. 151(ii), would be Ld. Pr. CCIT whereas the approval has been taken ... from PCIT-1, Ludhiana which is not the specified authority in the case of the assessee as per the provisions of Sec. 151(ii) of the Act. To support, the same, reference has been made to various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

Paresh Hiralal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 34(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the Assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4775/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Paresh Hiralal Shah, Income Tax Officer, 302, Shree Krishna Sadan, Ward 34(3)(2), Paranjpe Scheme No.2, (Assessment Unit Subhash Road, Vile Parle East, Vs. Income Tax Department) Mumbai – 400 057 Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Albps7761C Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Maharashtra - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shashi Bekal, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. In The Instant Case, Though The Notice U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Was Issued Within 3 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year, However, It Is Admitted That The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was 2 Mr. Paresh Hiralal Shah

For Appellant: Shri Shashi Bekal, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore as per sub clause (ii) of section 151 of the Act, the specified authority for granting the approval for issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act, would have been, either Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director