TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....48 and consequentially, the impugned re-assessment order dated 17.05.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act are also invalid and bad-in-law, as the sanction u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, to issue the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act has been obtained from the Authority who did not have jurisdiction over the case of the assessee. The sanction u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act and the consequential impugned re-assessment order may kindly be quashed/cancelled. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that, the sanction u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, to issue the notice u/s 148 is in accordance with the Income Tax Act. 3. The notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te any or all of the above grounds of appeal." Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld. AR for the Assessee filed written submission. Ld.AR invited our attention to page no. 41 - 42 of the paper book which is a notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18 dated 15.07.2022. ld.AR submitted that said notice has been approved by ld.Pr.CIT-3, Pune on 14.07.2022. Ld.AR submitted that for A.Y. 2017-18 as per section 151 of the Act, approval should have been of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. In this case, notice has been approved by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, hence, the notice is invalid. Ld.AR submitted that the order u/s. 148A(d) was approved by Pr.CIT-3, Pune, whereas as per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal 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.] 5. In this case, it is an admitted fact that more than three years have been lapsed from the end of the Assessment Year. Therefore, as per Section 151 of the Act, the Competent Authority to approve the notice u/s. 148 and order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act, is the ld. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income or ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. However, in this case, notice has been approved by ld. Principal Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason to just grant Rule and keep the matter pending. 4. As held in Siemens (Supra), the order passed under section 148A(d) and notice issued under section 148 of the Act both are quashed and set aside." Unquote. 5.2 Similarly, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pradeep Himatlal Shah Vs. ITO [2025] 170 taxmann.com 471(Bombay) has held as under : "4. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Thane-1. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-2019 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.), the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 22nd April 2022 under sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside." 5.4 Thus, Hon'ble Bombay High Court explained the Amendment made in 2023 is applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2023. 5.5 ITAT Pune in the case of Hareshkumar Dungarmal Jain vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1933/PUN/2024, quashed the Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 13.04.2022 for A.Y. 2018-19. 6. In the above referred decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Pradeep Himmatlal Shah vs. ITO (supra) the assessment year involved is A.Y. 2018-19 and order under section 148A(d) of the Act, was passed ....