TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 914
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]dated 17.10.2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18 arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 13.04.2023. Facts of the Case 2. The assessee an individual had not filed return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18. The assessment for the year under consideration was reopened on the basis of information received from DIT (Investigation & Criminal Intelligence), Mumbai indicating that the assessee had purchased an immovable property at a value lower than the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority. 3. Notice under section 148 was issued on 26.07.2022 after passing order under section 148A(d). The assessee fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout DIN d. Approval is mechanical e. No asset is found f. Same reopened by JAO instead of FAO g. without granting an opportunity of hearing 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in adding the income of Rs. 6,89,750/- u/s. 56(2)(x) which is 50% of Rs. 6,89,750/- by way of difference between the Purchase Consideration for Flat amounting to Rs. 1,29,10,500/- and Stamp Duty Value of the said flat as on 11-8-2016, being agreement date instead of correct date 23-6-2015, viz, the date when the Appellant had made first payment to the developer as per allotment letter. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred by considering ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resent case, the order under section 148A(b) and the consequent notice issued under section 148 dated 26.07.2022 have been issued after obtaining approval from PCIT-20, Mumbai. It was argued that such approval is not in accordance with law and judicial precedents governing sanction under section 151, and therefore the reopening is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 7. The learned AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mrs. Chitra Supekar [2023] 149 taxmann.com 26and the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Pandurang Patil[2025] 178 taxmann.com 8. 8. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte in nature and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chitra Supekar (supra) has held that sanction from PCCIT as contemplated under section 151(ii) ought to have been taken when order was sought to be passed beyond period of three years. Consequently, order was set aside for non-compliance with provisions of Act. Further, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Prakash Pandurang Patil v. ITO[2025] 177 taxmann.com 552 has categorically held that where the reassessment proceedings are initiated after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 is required to be granted by the authority specified under section 151(ii) and not by an authority of a lower rank under section 151(i). The Hon'ble High Court obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e PCIT-8 cannot be the specified authority as per section 151 of the Act. Further, even in the affidavit-in-reply, the department as accepted that the approval obtained is of the 'Principal Commissioner of Income- tax - 8' and, hence, such an approval would be bad in law. 25. TOLA, enacted on 29th September 2020 and came into force on 31st March 2020. It inter alia, provided for a relaxation of certain provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Where any time limit for completion or compliance of an action such as completion of any proceedings or passing of any order or issuance of any notice fell between the period 20th March 2020 to 31st December 2020, the time limit for completion of such action stood extended to 31st March....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ains to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April, 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCIT as provided under Section 151(ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 has been inserted only with effect from 1st April,2023 and therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand. 4. In these circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 7th April, 2022 under section 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside." ....