Jitesh Prakashchandra Jadav Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: Mumbai ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 and quashed the reassessment initiated under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had filed his return on 03.08.2010 declaring income of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 on 31.03.2017 and subsequently assessed income at Rs.50,54,620/-, making additions of Rs.13,80,000/- for unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 and Rs.35,24,618/- relating to differences in share-transaction data. CIT(A) upheld the reassessment and additions.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee raised additional jurisdictional grounds after obtaining certified copies of the reopening record. Relying on National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), the Tribunal admitted the additional grounds since they raised legal questions capable of adjudication from material already on record.
The Tribunal first rejected the assessee’s contention that, because more than four years had elapsed, sanction could be granted only by the Principal Chief Commissioner. It held that Section 151(1), as applicable before its substitution by the Finance Act, 2021, permitted sanction by the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Since the approval form bore the signature of the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-31, Mumbai dated 31.03.2017, the sanction was not invalid merely because it was granted by the Principal Commissioner. The Tribunal referred to Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC) in this regard.
