DINESH MEHTA HUF,KOLKATA V. ITO, WARD 30(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 1042/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Dinesh Mehta HUF against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2016-2017. The primary contention was the validity of a notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which was challenged on the grounds that it was issued beyond the permissible three-year period and without the proper authority. The notice aimed to reassess an amount exceeding Rs. 50,00,000, specifically Rs. 66,89,500, by denying the assessee a deduction under section 10(38) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the notice was invalid as it was not approved by the correct authority, the PCCIT, but rather by the PCIT, and was also issued beyond the statutory time limit.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791809 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D HEERAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMNATH GHOSH
• Keywords: Invalid notice

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1042/KOL/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Dinesh Mehta HUF C/o S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Vs ITO Ward-30(1), Kolkata PAN No. :AADHD 3917 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 28.02.2025 for the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the impugned assessment year is 2016-17. It was submission that notice u/s.148 of the Act came to be issued on 23/07/2022. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the copy of the notice issued which reads as follows:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1042/KOL/2025 2 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1042/KOL/2025 3 3. It was submission that the notice has been issued beyond 03 years. It was also the submission the quantum in the for reopening was more than Rs.50,00,000/-, more specifically Rs.66,89,500/-. It was submission that the approval for the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act beyond 3 years and the amount is above 50,00,000/- which should be granted by PCCIT. It was submission that approval has been obtained from the PCIT, Kolkata-9. It was submission that the approval is wrong and consequently, the notice issued 148 of the Act is also bad in law. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1042/KOL/2025 4 4. In reply, Ld.Sr. DR submitted that the principle of TOLA would apply and the law here in which assessment related the has to be applied. He vehemently supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the law as on the date for issuance of notice has been repeatedly held by various Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Apex Court. The perusal of the facts also clearly shows that the reopening has been done for bringing to tax to the extent of Rs.66,89,500/- by denying the assessee the deduction u/s.10(38) of the Act. The notice also been issued on 27/02/2022 as a consequence of an order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act dated 22/07/2022. The notice has been issued beyond the period of 3 years also from the end of the impugned assessment year. As it is noticed that the approval is to be granted in such cases by the PCCIT but the approval has been granted by the PCIT. Therefore, the approval granted is held to be invalid and the notice u/s.148 of the Act stands quashed. Consequently, the assessment order passed as consequence of the invalid notice issued 148 of the Act also stands quashed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 09/12/2025. Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 09/12/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1042/KOL/2025 5 आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "