TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (for brevity, 'Ld.AO') passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 01/03/2024. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground that the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the I. T. Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O. which was arbitrary, unjustified and bad-in-law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground that the Inquiry Proceedings u/s 148A of the I. T. Act, 1961 was to be conducted in faceless manner without considering the facts of the case. The appellant relies on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances of the case. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground that the Ld. A.O. has merely considered the value as determined by the Stamp Authority and has ignored the provisions of income tax and judicial decisions on section 50C(1) and section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground that the DVO while giving his valuation report had given the same without doing physical verification of the property and determined the same value as determined by stamp authority. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found sufficient for the purpose of valuation on the basis of the modern technological tools. The Ld. AR only focused his argument related to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act and the approval taken from PCIT is against the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of UOI vs Rajiv Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). The assessee challenged the validity of the sanction under Section 151 of the Act for the issuance of notices under Section 148 for assessment year 2017-18. In alleged year, the Pr. CIT-2, Mumbai, acted as the sanctioning authority under Section 151 of the Act. However, the question of whether the appropriate authority sanctioned the notices, as required under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncipal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. 15. In assessee's case from the perusal of para 3 of the notice issued under section 148 for AY 2016-17 we notice that the same is issued with the prior approval of Pr.CIT-19 Mumbai accorded on 29.07.2022 vide reference No. Pr. CIT 19/148/2022-23 and this fact is not contravened by the ld DR. For AY 2016-17, the period of three years have elapsed as of 31.03.2020 and the notice is issued beyond three years on 30.07.2022. Therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the approval should have been obtained under the amended provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t violated the provisions of the Act. 7. In Manish Financials, for AY 2017-18, the Bench found that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, as mandated. Consequently, the notice and the subsequent assessment order were deemed invalid. Applying the same rationale here, it is evident that for alleged assessment year, the sanctioning authority failed to comply with the specific requirements of Section 151(ii) of the Act. Since the notices were issued under the new regime but lacked the necessary approval from the appropriate authority, the sanction process stands invalid. As a result, the notices under Section 148 are de....