ITO Vs Samrat Madhav Paikrao (ITAT Mumbai)
Reassessment Notice Quashed – ITAT Mumbai Follows Vodafone Idea Ruling on Invalid Sanction
Revenue filed appeal against the NFAC order dated 29.05.2025 deleting addition made in reassessment u/s 147, while the Assessee filed cross-objection challenging the very validity of notice u/s 148 for AY 2018-19.
Assessee argued that the notice dated 05.04.2022 was issued beyond three years from the end of AY 2018-19 & the approval was wrongly obtained from the PCIT, instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) as mandated by Section 151(1) (prior to the amendment effective from 01.04.2023).
Relying on the Bombay High Court decision in Vodafone Idea Ltd v. DCIT (WP No. 2768 of 2022, dated 06.02.2024) & Siemens Financial Services Pvt Ltd v. DCIT, the Tribunal observed that where notice u/s 148 is issued after three years, the sanctioning authority must be the PCCIT & not the PCIT. As this condition was violated, the approval itself was invalid, rendering the entire reassessment void.
Accordingly, ITAT quashed the reassessment notice & order as being bad in law. Since the reassessment itself stood annulled, the Revenue’s appeal on merits became infructuous & was dismissed.
Result: Assessee’s cross-objection allowed – notice u/s 148 & reassessment order quashed. Revenue’s appeal dismissed as infructuous.
