Narendra Khimji Savla Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 16.10.2025 relating to Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The appeal arose from a reassessment order passed under Sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The assessee raised several legal and merit-based grounds challenging the reassessment proceedings. These included objections regarding the validity of the notice issued under Section 148, the absence of approval from the appropriate authority under Section 151, failure to mention the Document Identification Number (DIN), limitation under Section 149, lack of opportunity for cross-examination, non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2), additions relating to an alleged cash loan of Rs. 35 lakh, issues concerning PAN details, tax credit, charging of interest, and initiation of penalty proceedings.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee primarily pressed Ground No. 2, contending that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 had been issued without obtaining approval from the competent authority prescribed under Section 151 of the Act.
The assessee submitted that the original notice for reopening was issued on 16.04.2021 and a subsequent notice was issued on 29.07.2022. Since the notice dated 29.07.2022 was issued beyond three years from the end of AY 2017-18, approval for reopening was required from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CCIT) or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT). However, the approval had been obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT). According to the assessee, this was contrary to the provisions of Section 151 and rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court, and several coordinate bench decisions involving similar issues.
