SushilKumar Jain Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: The Mumbai ITAT allowed the appeal of SushilKumar Jain for AY 2017-18 by quashing the notice issued under section 148 and all consequential reassessment proceedings for want of approval from the competent authority prescribed under section 151(ii) of the Income-tax Act. The appeal arose from the NFAC/CIT(A) order dated 09.02.2026. The assessee’s grounds also challenged an addition of Rs.2,50,00,000 relating to unsecured loans from M/s Aneri Fincap Ltd., an alleged commission addition of Rs.1,35,000, interest under sections 234B and 234D and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC. The order’s factual narration separately records that the AO ultimately made an addition under section 69A of Rs.251,35,000 on account of unexplained cash deposit.
The reassessment had been initiated through a notice under section 148 dated 30.07.2022 after sanction was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai. Before the Tribunal, the assessee challenged the very jurisdiction of the AO, contending that the notice had been issued without sanction from the competent authority contemplated by section 151(ii). The assessee relied upon Skypak Travels Private Limited vs ITO, [2026] 185 Taxmann.com 963 (Bom.) and sought quashing of both the notice and the consequential assessment order. The Revenue relied upon the orders of the lower authorities.
