ITO Vs Karan Raju Jumani (ITAT Mumbai)
Mumbai ITAT Quashes Reassessment for Want of Approval from Competent Authority under Section 151
The Mumbai ITAT quashed the reassessment proceedings, holding that prior approval from the competent authority prescribed under section 151 is a jurisdictional pre-condition for issuing a notice under section 148. In the present case, the reassessment notice issued on 28.07.2022 (after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year) was approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), whereas, under section 151(ii), the approval ought to have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner or equivalent specified authority.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (469 ITR 46), the Tribunal held that obtaining approval from the correct specified authority is not a procedural formality but a condition precedent for assumption of jurisdiction. Since the Revenue failed to establish that approval had been obtained from the competent authority, the notice issued under section 148, the order passed under section 148A(d), and the consequential reassessment proceedings were held to be void ab initio and were quashed. As a result, the Revenue’s appeal on merits became infructuous and was dismissed.
Cases Discussed
- Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (SC), (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC)
- High Court Bar Association v. State of UP (SC), [2024] 160 taxmann.com 32/299 Taxman 21 (SC)/[2024] 6 SCC 267
- Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (SC), [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC)]
- Sri Krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (SC), [1996] 87 Taxman 315/221 ITR 538 (SC)/[1996] 9 SCC 534
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 11/12/2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “Ld.CIT(A)”] for A.Y. 2016-17.
