Mahesh Gokuldas Fulwani Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Summary: The Pune ITAT partly allowed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18, holding that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under section 148 dated 26.07.2022 was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year but had received approval from the PCIT, Nashik instead of the authority specified under section 151(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The assessee had filed his return on 02.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.6,79,450/-. The reassessment was initiated on information in the possession of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Following the direction of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, a notice under section 148A(d) was issued and the reassessment proceedings ultimately resulted in an addition of Rs.1,81,34,250/- relating to deposits with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. The CIT(A)/NFAC upheld the Assessing Officer’s action.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee pressed only ground No.1, challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings on the ground of improper approval under section 151. The assessee relied, among other decisions, on Holiday Developers (P.) Ltd., Gigantic Mercantile (P.) Ltd. and Rajaram Jaju. The Departmental Representative submitted that the issue had not been raised before the Assessing Officer or CIT(A)/NFAC and sought restoration of the matter.
