TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 938
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned order remanated from the order of the Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (for brevity the "Ld. AO") order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 18.05.2023. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual capacity filed the return by declaring total income Rs. 9,72,270/-. As per the information received by the Ld. AO the assessee has purchased an immovable property for consideration price whose value is less than the value adopted by the stamp duty authority. Accordingly, notice u/sec. 148 was issued on 28.06.2021 and after substitute of Finance Act 2021 and construed or treated to be a said notice u/sec. 148A in terms of section 148A(b) of the Act by considering the order of Hon&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice u/sec. 151 of the Act. As the sanction of the notice granted by the Pr. CIT 19 Mumbai beyond the prescribed period of three years from the end of relevant assessment year was contrary to law and, therefore, vitiated the entire reassessment proceeding. 4. In furtherance of his submissions, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Alag Property Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) reported in 179 taxmann.com 578 (Bom), and reproduced the relevant paragraphs 11 to 14 thereof as under: "11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has drawn an illustration in para 78 of its order in the context of A.Y. 2017-18 (which is also the relevant Assessment year in the present Wri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice issued under section 148 dated 23.08.2022, and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom." 5. Respectful reliance was also placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai - I Bench, in the case of Shabbir Taheri v. ITO, ITA No. 1574/Mum/2025, pronounced on 15.10.2025. The Hon'ble Vice President of the Mumbai Bench passed a concurrent order therein, and the relevant observations of the Bench are reproduced below: "6. As could be seen from the provision contained u/s. 151 of the Act reproduced above, as per clause (i), in a case where action u/s. 148 and Section 148A of the Act is initiated before expiry of three years from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fifth proviso under sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 11. Similar view was reiterated by the Coordinate Bench in case of ACIT vs. Asha P. Kedia (Supra). It is relevant to observe, though the aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Benches were rendered at a prior point of time and were available when the appeal of Albert Joseph Rozario (Supra) vs. ITO (Supra) was taken up before another Coordinate Bench, however, either knowingly or unknowingly, these decisions of the Coordinate Benches were not brought to the notice of the learned Bench. It appears so, because, there is no reference of these decisions in case of Albert Joseph Rozario vs. ITO (Supra). Had these decisions of Coordinate Bench....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that prior to insertion of proviso u/s. 151 of the Act by Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. 01.04.2023, the specified authority who can grant sanction for initiating proceedings u/s. 148A and issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act after expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year is PCCIT/CCIT in terms with Section 151(ii) of the Act. Hence, in absence of any enabling provision u/s. 151 of the Act, the 3rd, 4th and 5th or 6th provisos of Section 149(1) of the Act cannot be read into Section 151 of the Act to extend the time limit u/s. 151(i) of the Act. 13. In view of aforesaid, I fully agree with the decision of my learned brother Accountant Member that, both the order passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act and notice issued u/s. 148 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reassessment proceedings void ab initio. The said judgment, being rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court, is binding on us. We further find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in Shabbir Taheri (supra), after an exhaustive analysis of sections 149 and 151 of the Act, has reiterated that prior to 01.04.2023, sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 after expiry of three years could be granted only by the authority specified under section 151(ii) of the Act, namely the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, and that the proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2023 has no retrospective application.In the present case, it is undisputed that the sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 and for passi....