Jayashree Ketan Gada Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench, in Jayashree Ketan Gada Vs ITO examined the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee challenged the order dated 1 September 2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A) and raised an additional jurisdictional ground before the Tribunal, asserting that approval for the reassessment notice had been obtained contrary to Section 151. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as a pure question of law requiring no fresh evidence, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in NTPC Vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). The assessee submitted that the Section 148 notice dated 29 July 2022 had been issued more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year and challenged the authority from which sanction had been obtained. The Tribunal examined the jurisdictional issue first because it went to the root of the reassessment proceedings.
The Tribunal referred to coordinate bench rulings in Satish Harnamadas Sethi (ITA No. 3091/Mum/2024), Ramlal Suthar (ITA No. 3224/Mum/2024), Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani (ITA No. 3551/Mum/2024) and Devalbai Karsan Parmar (ITA No. 1786/Mum/2025). It concluded that the approval for issuance of the notice under Section 148 had been obtained in violation of Section 151 and followed Satish Harnamadas Sethi in holding that the jurisdictional defect invalidated the reassessment. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the notice under Section 148, the resulting reopening proceedings and the consequential reassessment order. The assessee’s appeal was partly allowed by the order pronounced on 4 November 2025. The supplied order contains an inconsistency between its additional-ground recital and paragraph 5 as to which approving authority was required and which actually approved the notice; that inconsistency is preserved in the original text rather than silently corrected.
Cases Discussed
- Devalbai Karsan Parmar (ITAT Mumbai), ITA No. 1786/Mum/2025 — Cited as a coordinate bench precedent concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings and approval under Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- Satish Harnamadas Sethi (ITAT Mumbai), ITA No. 3091/Mum/2024 — Expressly followed by the Tribunal in quashing the reassessment notice issued in violation of Section 151.
- Ramlal Suthar (ITAT Mumbai), ITA No. 3224/Mum/2024 — Referred to as a coordinate bench decision concerning the jurisdictional validity of reassessment proceedings.
- Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani (ITAT Mumbai), ITA No. 3551/Mum/2024 — Cited among the coordinate bench decisions considered while examining the validity of sanction under Section 151.
- National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (Supreme Court), (1998) 229 ITR 383 — Relied upon for admitting an additional legal ground before the Tribunal where no further investigation of facts was required.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 01.09.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2022-
2. At the outset, Ld. AR has raised the additional ground, wherein he has challenged the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on the ground that the approval for issuance of notice sought by the department is in violation of the provisions of Sec. 151 of the Act.
3. After having heard the counsels for both the parties on this application for raising additional ground, I find that this ground raised by the assessee is purely legal in question and requires no further evidence therefore while relying upon the decision in the case of NTPC V/s. CIT(1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). I allow the application for raising additional ground and consequently the said ground is admitted to be heard on merits.
4. Since the application for seeking additional ground raised by the assessee has been allowed, therefore we would like to adjudicate this issue firstly as the same goes to the roots of the case. The additional grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced herein below:
Additional Ground.
The Appellant/assessee craves for leave to raise and state additional ground(s), which concerns the issue of jurisdiction u/s. 147 and goes to the root of the matter. It is submitted that the issue(s) of jurisdiction can be raised for the first time before this Hon’ble Tribunal. It is submitted that:
1) Date of notice u/s. 148 – The assessment has been framed u/s. 147, vide notice u/s. 148 dated 29th July 2022, for A.Y. 2017-18. Hence it is submitted that the reopening is beyond three years, from the end of the assessment year.
2) Approval u/s. 151- It is submitted that since the for the purpose of section 151 the appropriate authority is the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income tax (PCCIT). Whereas the Ld. AO has obtained approval of the PCIT, as mentioned in para 3 of the notice u/s. 148 dated 22nd July 2022 (copy attached herewith). And, hence the reopening is bad-in-law & illegal.
5. From the records we noticed that the date of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act is on 29.07.2022 for A.Y 2017- 18 and hence the reopening is beyond three years from the end of the assessment year. As per the provisions of Sec. 151 of the Act, the appropriate authority for seeking approval is Pr. CIT whereas the AO has obtained approval of Pr. CCIT as mentioned in para 3 of the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 22.07.2022. In this regard I have perused the provisions of Sec. 151 of the Act and also the decision of the Coordinate Benches of ITAT mentioned herein below:
1. Satish Harnamadas Sethi in ITA No. 3091/Mum/2024.
2. Ramlal Suthar in ITA No. 3224/Mum/2024.
3. Ramchand Thakurdas Jhamtani ITA No. 3551/Mum/2024.
4. Devalbai Karsan Parmar ITA No. 1786/Mum/2025
6. Since the facts of the present case are very clear wherein the notice u/s 148 of the Act for reopening has been issued after three years from the end of the assessment year and admittedly the approval for issuance of said notice has been obtained in violation of Sec. 151 of the Act and therefore while relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Satish Harnamadas Sethi in ITA No. 3091/Mum/2024 and also keeping in view the facts of the present case I quashed the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act, resultantly the impugned reopening proceedings so initiated and the impugned reassessment order passed thereafter also stands quashed.
7. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04/11/2025
