https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768981 ITAT Mumbai quashed the reopening assessment for AY 2016-17 after finding the AO failed to obtain proper statutory approval. The order under section 148A(d) was passed on 30-06-2022, exceeding three years from the assessment year end, requiring approval from Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority per section 151. However, AO obtained approval only from Principal Commissioner, violating statutory requirements. Following Bombay HC precedent in Siemens Financial Services case with identical facts, ITAT held both the section 148A(d) order and section 148 notice were bad in law, consequently quashing the assessment order and allowing the assessee's appeal. en-us Mon, 26 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Apr 2025 08:37:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768981 ITAT Mumbai quashed the reopening assessment for AY 2016-17 after finding the AO failed to obtain proper statutory approval. The order under section 148A(d) was passed on 30-06-2022, exceeding three years from the assessment year end, requiring approval from Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority per section 151. However, AO obtained approval only from Principal Commissioner, violating statutory requirements. Following Bombay HC precedent in Siemens Financial Services case with identical facts, ITAT held both the section 148A(d) order and section 148 notice were bad in law, consequently quashing the assessment order and allowing the assessee's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 26 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768981