TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1757
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] dated 08.05.2023 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld AO of initiating reassessment proceeding under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad in law and require to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld AO in issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 not obtaining approval of appropriate authority in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the Income Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efinition of Income and thus it cannot be added to the total income of the appellant. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issue WHERE the Ld.AO has passed an assessment order on PAN No DQGPS6936E (for which the appellant has already filed an application for cancellation) as against the PAN No AHEPS9345P which is regularly used by the appellant. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issue WHERE the Ld AO has erred in not giving credit of taxes paid on PAN No AHEPS9345P especially when the income offered of such PAN was added to reassessment proceedings. 11. On the facts and circumstances of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee years from the end of the assessment year. However, the sanction for issuing the notice was taken from PCIT and not from the correct authority i.e. PCCIT. It is submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by the hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46(SC)and followed by the jurisdiction High Court decision in the case of Alagh Property Construction P. Ltd 179 taxmann.com 578(Bom) the entire proceedings are invalid. He also placed reliance on several coordinate bench orders involving identical issue where reopening was beyond three years though the escapement was less than Rs 50 lakh i.e. Sudhir Mortiram Patil in ITA No.6190/Mum/2025, Gamnaram O. Prajapati in ITA No.6791/Mum/2025,Jayshree Gada ITA No.5512/Mum/2025 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.]" 6.1 In view of the legal provisions, clearly the sanctioning authority in this case is the Pr. CCIT/CCIT and not the Pr. CIT as more than three years have elapsed from the end of the assessment year. Thus, we hold that the notice u/s. 148 in this case was issued without the approval of the prescribed specified authority and hence deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. 6.2 Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction....