“specified authority”

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

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

issue that arises for consideration is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was the Specified Authority for seeking approval for passing order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act (new regime ... India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)[03/10/2024]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had, while dealing with the issue of approval from specified authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act, made the following observations: “74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly

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

issue that arises for consideration is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was the Specified Authority for seeking approval for passing order under 3 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section ... India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)[03/10/2024]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had, while dealing with the issue of approval from specified authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act, made the following observations: “74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly

ITO 13(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ska Sales Private Limited, Mumbai

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

summarized thus: (i) Section 148 mandates the assessing officer to initiate proceedings only based on prior information and with the prior approval of the specified authority; (ii) Section 148A requires the assessing officer to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding to issue a reassessment notice ... under section 148. Section 148A requires the assessing officer to: (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of the specified authority; (b) provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving a show cause notice with the prior approval of the specified authority; Assessment Year

Ska Sales Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officsr, Ward 13(2)(1), Mumbai

summarized thus: (i) Section 148 mandates the assessing officer to initiate proceedings only based on prior information and with the prior approval of the specified authority; (ii) Section 148A requires the assessing officer to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding to issue a reassessment notice ... under section 148. Section 148A requires the assessing officer to: (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of the specified authority; (b) provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving a show cause notice with the prior approval of the specified authority; (c) consider

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Bau Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Occupancy Certificate of the project was also received by the assessee company on 22.11.2017 from the specified authority. The contention of the assessee company that, the revenue has been recognized 6 Assessment Year 2018-2019 only in respect of those units for which agreements have been entered and in respect ... relevant to the AY 2018- 19 and Occupancy Certificate of the said project was received by the assessee company from the specified authority on 22.11.2017 itself. Therefore, the amount of Rs 29,57,77,271/-shown as advances as on 31.03.2018 are hereby treated as sales and added

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

obtained , however, approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Principal Commissioner of Income- -tax (PCIT)-20, Mumbai, who was not the specified authority for such cases. Mumbai, who was not the specified authority for such cases. Mumbai, who was not the specified authority for such cases. According ... would not override the timeline prescribed u/s. 149(1) of the Act would not override the timeline prescribed for grant of approval by the specified authority u/s. 151 of prescribed for grant of approval by the specified authority u/s. 151 of prescribed for grant of approval by the specified authority

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 ()

from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (supra): “iii. Sanction of the specified authority 73. Section 151 imposes a check upon the power of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue ... ensure that it obtains the sanction of the specified authority before issuing a notice under section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assessees from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments Sri krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 87 Taxman 315/221

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.

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 ... 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 an extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime

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.

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 ... 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 an extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime