https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770606 The ITAT PUNE held that reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to improper approval authority. The notice under section 148A(d) was issued beyond the three-year period from the relevant assessment year, requiring approval from Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner, or Director General. Since approval was granted by PCIT instead of the specified authorities, the reopening was invalid and not in accordance with law. Following precedent in Hareshkumar Dungarmal Jain case, the tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the reassessment proceedings. en-us Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 May 2025 18:19:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770606 The ITAT PUNE held that reassessment proceedings were vitiated due to improper approval authority. The notice under section 148A(d) was issued beyond the three-year period from the relevant assessment year, requiring approval from Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner, or Director General. Since approval was granted by PCIT instead of the specified authorities, the reopening was invalid and not in accordance with law. Following precedent in Hareshkumar Dungarmal Jain case, the tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the reassessment proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770606