Mumbai ITAT Quashes AY 2019-20 Reassessment Over Invalid PCIT Approval

By CA Vijayakumar Shetty Income Tax Judiciary August 22, 2026

TaxGuru Citation: 2026 taxguru.in 11522
Case Name: Sachin Madhukar Fegde Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number: Only available for paid members
Date of Judgement/Order: Only available for paid members
Related Assessment Year: 2019-20
Courts: All ITAT, ITAT Mumbai

Already Upgraded? Log in.

Sachin Madhukar Fegde Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

PCIT’s Approval Invalid for Reopening Beyond Three Years: Mumbai ITAT Quashes AY 2019-20 Reassessment

The assessment for AY 2019-20 was reopened through a notice under Section 148 dated 4 April 2023, which was issued after more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, the approval for reopening was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane.

The Mumbai ITAT held that under Section 151(ii), reopening beyond three years requires prior approval from a higher specified authority—namely the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General. Approval from the PCIT, who is the authority contemplated under Section 151(i), was therefore jurisdictionally invalid.

Relying upon the Bombay High Court ruling in Alag Property Construction (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and dismissal of the Revenue’s SLP in ITO vs. Mangla Gupta, the Tribunal held that sanction from the correct specified authority is a mandatory precondition for assuming reassessment jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the notice issued under Section 148 was held invalid, and the reassessment framed under Sections 147 read with 144 was quashed as void ab initio.

List of Cases Discussed / Relied Upon