← 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

Precel Solution Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

AYs.2016-17 and 2017-18 by obtaining sanction from the Pr.CIT (Central) – 3, Mumbai on 29.07.2022 and 30.07.2022 respectively. The ld. AR submitted that the “Specified authority” to sanction the issue of notice is Pr. CIT, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from ... relevant assessment years. If more than three years have elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year, the specified authority is the Pr. CCIT of Income-tax or the Chief Commissioner or the Director General of Income-tax, if no PCCIT or Pr. DGIT is available. In appellant’s case

Precel Solutioins Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

AYs.2016-17 and 2017-18 by obtaining sanction from the Pr.CIT (Central) – 3, Mumbai on 29.07.2022 and 30.07.2022 respectively. The ld. AR submitted that the “Specified authority” to sanction the issue of notice is Pr. CIT, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from ... relevant assessment years. If more than three years have elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year, the specified authority is the Pr. CCIT of Income-tax or the Chief Commissioner or the Director General of Income-tax, if no PCCIT or Pr. DGIT is available. In appellant’s case

Naina Manish Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 262/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnaina Manish Desai, Flat No. 6, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3Rd Floor, Triveni Building, बनाम – 19(2)(4), Piramal Walkeshwar Triveni Chs E Chambers, 5Th Floor, Block, 66 Walkeshwar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400 006, Maharashtra 400012, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabps9026P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Jeet Kamdar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)

under section 148A(d) and issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act are bad in law as the prior approval of the specified authority under section 151(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has not been obtained and hence, the consequent assessment under section 147 is also ... under section 148A(d) and issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act are bad in law as the prior approval of the specified authority under section 151(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has not been obtained and hence, the consequent assessment under section 147 is also

Income Tax Officer Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug vs. Homewell Realty LLP, Andheri, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1684/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the specified authority to grant sanction to issue order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 of the Act in the present case would be Pr.CCIT/CCIT ... erred in holding that the impugned notice was issued by the AO without obtaining prior approval of the specified authority as statutorily required in section 151 of the Act and the AO lacked jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that prior approval

Manisha Nitin Brahmbhatt, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1651/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 1651/Mum/2025

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal Akhilesh, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe, Sr. D/R
Section 132Section 132ASection 132oSection 133ASection 133A(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

regime. The provisions of section 151 of the Act under the new regime read as under: Sanction for issue of notice. 151. 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 or less

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Lotus Grih Nirman Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas cross-objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1484/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Cc-7(3), Mumbai M/S Lotus Grih Nirman Pvt Ltd. Room No. 655, Floor 6Th, 1201,12Th Floor Lotus Link Square, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Near Apna Bazar, D N Nagar, New Mumbai-4000202 Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai- 400 053 Pan No. Aabcl 0864 D Appellant Respondent Co No. 105/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1484/Mum/2025) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Lotus Grih Nirman Pvt Ltd. Acit, Cc-7(3), Mumbai 1201,12Th Floor Lotus Link Room No. 655, Floor 6Th, Aayakar Square, Near Apna Bazar, D N Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Nagar, New Link Road, Andheri Mumbai-4000202 West, Mumbai- 400 053 Pan No. Aabcl 0864 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj SoniFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 151

reproduce the relevant extract of Section 151 of the Act, as applicable during the relevant assessment year: “151. Sanction for issue of notice. The specified authority for the purposes of Section 148 and Section 148A shall be,— (i) the Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Waryam Steel Casting Private Limited, Kanganwal Road

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

ITA 757/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 148Section 250

argument, apparently the appellant has ignored the discretionary power vested in the AO u/s 148A(a) to conduct an inquiry with prior approval of specified authority if he requires to do so, after receipt of information. The argument of the appellant is not maintainable as it is not correct appreciation

Waryam Steel Castings Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana

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

ITA 715/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 148Section 250

argument, apparently the appellant has ignored the discretionary power vested in the AO u/s 148A(a) to conduct an inquiry with prior approval of specified authority if he requires to do so, after receipt of information. The argument of the appellant is not maintainable as it is not correct appreciation

Hetal Pagare, ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Mulund West

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed in above terms

ITA 120/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit 16(2), Vs. Hasmukh Kababhai Ravat, Room No. 481, Aayakar Bhavan, 1901, Moksh Mahal Building, Mumbai-400 020 Maharashtra-400 080 Pan: Aabpr2061D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250

valued at Rs. 7,00,00,000/- on assessee's balance sheet is greater than Rs. 50,00,000/-. After taking necessary approval of specified Authority i.e. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, an order u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed. 5. After receiving the approval

Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar vs. ITO, Exemption, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2225/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2018-19]

Section 10Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee by the AO with the prior approval from the specified authority wherein the assessee was given a show-cause notice dated 14.03.2022, which was served upon the assessee through speed post and assessee was show caused

Sunita Sarda, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 71(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmansunita Sarda, Vs. Acit, Circle 71 (1), 5/5761, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aanps7143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Vidhi Mangla, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2025 Date Of Order : 14.05.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 06.06.2023 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,000/-. The Department Has Received Information From Office Of Ddit (Inv.), Unit 6 (3), New Delhi On 06.03.2018 That The Assessee Has Taken Bogus Accommodation Entry Amounting To Rs.17,25,000/- During Fy 2010-11 By Trading In The Penny Scrip I.E. M/S. Global Capital

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi Mangla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

account of patent jurisdictional error. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/ specified authority failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 151 of the Act and proceeded in a mechanical manner thereby rendering the impugned proceedings

Balwan Vats, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Gurugram

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

ITA 1195/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Balwan Vats, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(3), H.No.1, Vpo-Dundahera, Gurugram Old Delhi Road, Near Shiva Computer, Gurugram Haryana Pin 122016 Pan No. Afmpv6320H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manjeet Sahni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194C

were initiated and concluded by passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 30.03.2022 with prior approval of specified authority. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2022. The assessee failed to file return of income in response to notice under

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Lotus Logistics and Developers Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 627/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit-Cc-7(3) Lotus Logistics & Developers Room No. 655, Floor 6Th, Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. 1301, 13Th Level, Lotus Trade Mumbai-400020 Centre, New Link Road, Near D N Nagar Metro Station, Andheri-West, Mumbai- 700013 Pan No. Aabcl 1198 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 43C

section 151 during relevant period are reproduced as under: “Section 151 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 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 ... provides that issuance of notice is subject to the approval given as per the provisions of Section 151 of the Act by the Specified Authority. 7.1. Clause (i) of Section 151 describes the Specified Authority as Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less

Vinod Kumar Kesharwani, Bhatapara vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 80/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.80/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinod Kumar Keshwani Vinod Dal Mill, Village: Khokhali, Bhatapara (C.G.)-493 118 Pan: Aewpk4399C

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

justified. 2. The notice issued u/s.148 and consequent reassessment order passed by AO is illegal inasmuch as the sanction u/s. 151 from specified authority is not as per law and without jurisdiction. 3. The initiation of re-assessment proceedings and issue of notice u/s. 148 is bad in law, illegal

Vinod Laljibhai Vadsola, Timbadi vs. ITO, Ward-1, Morbi

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

ITA 939/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 939/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Vinod Laljibhai Vadsola Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vill. Timbadi, Tal: Morbi- Morbi-363 641 Vs. 363 641 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alnpv 3995 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Order (Ay) 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short “Cit(A)”, Dated 09.08.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” Dated 25.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 2. “The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 1. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts In Holding Assessment Proceedings As Valid Through: A. The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Has Been Issued By The Ito, Ward-1, Morbi In Violation Of The Provisions Of Sec. 151A Of Act & The Ita No. 939/Rjt/2024 A.Y.17-18 Vinod L. Vadsola

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 69A

possession, which might had revealed escapement of income. e. The order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed without approval of the competent specified authority as per sec. 151(ii) of the Act. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts in upholding addition

Yezdi Naushir Bharucha, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 315/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.315/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Yezdi Naushir Bharucha, V The Income Tax Officer, Bharucha House, New Laxmi S. Ward-1(3), Jalgaon. Talkies Road, Amalner – 425401. Maharashtra. Pan: Abepb6770B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak - Ar Revenue By Shri Date Of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 11.12.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Reopening U/S 148 Was Valid In Law Without Appreciating That The Notice U/S 148 Was Issued Was Invalid In Law & Accordingly, The Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 Should Have Been Declared Null & Void.

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax. ITA No.315/PUN/2025 [A] 4.3 Section 151 of the I.T.Act is reproduced here as under : [Sanction for issue of notice. 151. 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

Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 1, Panvel

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

ITA 2405/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 2(14)Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

section 151(ii) of the new regime where more 5 than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority for giving approval is Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. 11. Referring to paras ... terms of Section 148-A(b).‖ Further, this Court dispensed with the requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under Section 148A(a). Under Section 148A(b), an assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show

ACIT Circle 22 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Rajesh Nemichand Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1457/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Shreyash Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Govindrao J. Ninawe, Sr. D/R
Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

power of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to 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 assesses from harassment resulting from the mechanical ... table representing the prescription under the old and new regime is set out below: Regime Time limits Specified authority Section 151(2) of the old regime Before expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year Joint Commissioner Section 151(1) of the old regime After expiry

Smt Nirakumari Virendra Bajaj, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-17(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6177/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 250

based on the above information. 9. This order is passed with the prior approval of the specified authority.” 7. Thereafter, Assessment Order, dated 24/01/2024, was passed under Section 148 of the Act whereby the Assessing Officer had made aggregate addition of INR.29,56,149/- in the hands of the Assessee

Dattatray Namdev Suryawanshi, Panvel vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 896/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Kaushik Makwana, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 147Section 194CSection 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270ASection 69

provisions for re-opening of assessment upon amendment by Finance Act, 2021, the first proviso to section 148 refers to approval by specified authority which is to be obtained before issuing notice u/s. 148. Section 151 describes specified authority for the purpose of section 148 and 148A, based upon ... escaped assessment is more than Rs.50,00,000/-. These admitted facts are relevant on the legal aspect relating to obtaining prior approval from the specified authority which are undisputed and nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to controvert the same. 5.1 We find that in the decision