ITO Vs Neelesh Hasmukh Doshi HUF (ITAT Mumbai)
The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed two appeals filed by the Revenue against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 30 October 2025, concerning Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2018-19.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer had issued notices under section 148 after obtaining approval under section 151(ii) from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai. According to the assessee, the notices were issued beyond three years from the end of the respective assessment years and, therefore, approval under section 151(ii) could only be granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and not by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.
The assessee pointed out that the section 148 notices were issued on 27 July 2022 for AY 2016-17 and on 28 April 2022 for AY 2018-19. The assessee relied upon the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Mrs. Chitra Supekar Vs. ITO, (2023) 453 ITR 530 (Bom.) and Cipla Pharma and Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2024) 164 taxmann.com 663 (Bom.).
The assessee further submitted that the Supreme Court, in ITO Vs. Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia, (2024) 164 taxmann.com 41 (SC), had rejected the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition against the Bombay High Court decision in Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia Vs. ITO, (2024) 469 ITR 262 (Bom.).
The Departmental Representative, in respect of AY 2018-19, contended that the notice had been issued within the limitation period. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Albert Joseph Rozario Vs. ITO, ITA No. 1168/Mum/2025, dated 22 July 2025. The supplied order does not record any further Revenue submission concerning the approval issue beyond this contention.
The Tribunal examined the notices issued under section 148 and the orders passed under section 148A(d). It found that the material clearly indicated that approval had been obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional Bombay High Court’s decision in Mrs. Chitra Supekar Vs. ITO, (2023) 453 ITR 530 (Bom.), which, as recorded in the supplied order, held that where an order under section 148A(d) was passed after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year without approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as contemplated under section 151(ii), the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The Tribunal also noted that a similar view had been taken by the Bombay High Court in Cipla Pharma and Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2024) 164 taxmann.com 663 (Bom.).
On that basis, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)’s orders holding that the mandatory sanction required under section 151(ii) had not been obtained from the specified authority for AYs 2016-17 and 2018-19. It held that initiation of the reassessment proceedings was therefore without authority of law and void ab initio.
The Tribunal sustained the CIT(A)’s orders and rejected Ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s grounds of appeal.
Since the reassessment proceedings were held to be without authority of law and void ab initio on the legal ground concerning sanction under section 151(ii), the Tribunal did not adjudicate the remaining grounds raised by the Revenue. Those grounds were held to have become academic in nature and were left open.
Accordingly, both appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The order was pronounced in the open Court on 19 June 2026.
Cases Discussed
- Mrs. Chitra Supekar Vs. ITO, (2023) 453 ITR 530 (Bom.) — relied upon for the proposition that where an order under section 148A(d) is passed after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as contemplated by section 151(ii) is required.
- Cipla Pharma and Life Sciences Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2024) 164 taxmann.com 663 (Bom.) — cited as a Bombay High Court decision taking a similar view concerning the mandatory sanction required under section 151(ii).
- ITO Vs. Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia, (2024) 164 taxmann.com 41 (SC) — referred to in the assessee’s submission in relation to the Supreme Court’s rejection of the Revenue’s SLP against the Bombay High Court decision in Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia Vs. ITO.
- Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia Vs. ITO, (2024) 469 ITR 262 (Bom.) — referred to in the assessee’s submission as the Bombay High Court decision against which the Revenue’s SLP was rejected by the Supreme Court.
- Albert Joseph Rozario Vs. ITO, ITA No. 1168/Mum/2025, dated 22.07.2025 — relied upon by the Departmental Representative in contending that the notice for AY 2018-19 was issued within the limitation period.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 30.10.2025, for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19.
2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Assessing Officer for both these assessment years issued notices u/s 148 of the Act after obtaining approval u/s 151(ii) of the Act from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 19, Mumbai, which is bad in law. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessments sought to be reopened u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19 were beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment years and, therefore, an approval u/s 151(ii) of the Act could only be granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and not by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to page 10 of the compilation, submitted that for both the assessment years i.e., A.Y. 2016-17 and A.Y. 2018-19, notices u/s 148 were issued on 27.07.2022 and 28.04.2022, respectively, which are beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment years 2016-17 and 2018- 19, therefore, the same are bad in law. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. Chitra Supekar vs. ITO, (2023) 453 ITR 530 (Bom.) and Cipla Pharma and Life Sciences Ltd. vs. DCIT, (2024) 164 taxmann.com 663 (Bom.). Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the case of ITO vs. Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia, (2024) 164 taxmann.com 41 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the SLP filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia vs. ITO, (2024) 469 ITR 262 (Bom.).
3. On the other hand, Ld. DR, insofar as the assessment year 2018-19 is concerned, submitted that the notice was issued within the limitation period. Ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Albert Joseph Rozario vs. ITO in ITA No.1168/Mum/2025 dated 22.07.2025.
4. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court relied upon. Perusal of the notices issued u/s 148 and the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act clearly suggests that approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. Chitra Supekar (supra) held that where the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 148A(d) after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year without obtaining approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as contemplated by section 151(ii) of the Act, the same would invalidate the reassessment proceedings. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Cipla Pharma and Life Sciences Ltd. (supra).
5. In the circumstances, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that the mandatory sanction as required u/s 151(ii) was not obtained from the specified authority for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2018-19 and, thus, the initiation of reassessment proceedings in the present case was without authority of law and void ab initio. We sustain the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject Ground No. 3 of the Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue.
6. Since we have held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings in the present case was without authority of law and void ab initio on a legal ground, the other grounds raised by the Revenue need not be adjudicated at this stage since they have become academic in nature, and they are left open.
7. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/06/2026
