DCIT Vs Unify Texturisers Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)
Reassessment quashed – Wrong sanctioning authority u/s 151 after 3 years; entire proceedings held void – ITAT Mumbai
In DCIT vs Unify Texturisers Pvt. Ltd. (A.Y. 2017-18), reassessment was initiated under the new regime with multiple additions. The assessee challenged validity of reopening on the ground that sanction u/s 151 was granted by the Principal Commissioner, though more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.
The ITAT examined section 151 and relied on binding Bombay High Court judgment in Alag Property Construction Pvt. Ltd. and coordinate bench rulings, holding that prior to Finance Act 2023 amendment, sanction beyond three years could be granted only by PCCIT/CCIT and not by PCIT. Since approval was obtained from Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai, jurisdictional conditions were violated, rendering notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) invalid.
Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the entire reassessment proceedings. As the case was decided on legal grounds, issues on merits became academic; assessee’s cross-objection was allowed and Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The appeal by the revenue and cross objection by the assessee filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-53, Mumbai [for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A)], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2017-18, date of order 26.06.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax C.C.-53,Mumbai (for brevity the Ld. AO), order passed under section 147 of the Act, date of order 03.05.2023.
