HIMANSHU SARDA,MUMBAI V. ITO, MUMBAI

CO 410/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Department against the order of the CIT(A), which had deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding capital gains on a property sold by Himanshu Sarda. The AO had initially added the entire stamp duty value of the property as capital gains due to the assessee's failure to provide the cost of acquisition or improvement. The CIT(A) reversed this decision, leading to the Department's appeal. Concurrently, Sarda challenged the jurisdiction of the AO to issue a notice under section 148 of the Act, leading to the cross-objection. The Tribunal found that the notice and subsequent proceedings were invalid due to improper sanctioning authority, leading to the quashing of the reassessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834546 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: UOI vs Ashish Agarwal, Alag Property Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Shabbir Taheri v. ITO, Agnello Oswin Dias vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RITESH MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY R. SINGH; AKSHAY PAWAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Retrospective amendment; Reassessment proceedings; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Period of limitation; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5862/Mum/2025 (Assessment year: 2017-18) ITO,Ward-42(1)(2), Mumbai Room No. 734, Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 vs Himanshu Sarda 705/706, Shivalaya Residency CHS Ltd., Thakur Complex, 90 Feet Road, Kandivali East, Mumbai- 400101 PAN: FLPPS9753F APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O.410/Mum/2025 (Arising out of I.T.A. No.5862/Mum/2025 A.Y. :2017-18) Himanshu Sarda 705/706, Shivalaya Residency CHS Ltd., Thakur Complex, 90 Feet Road, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101 PAN: FLPPS9753F vs ITO,Ward-42(1)(2), Mumbai Room No. 734, Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ajay R. Singh, Adv & Akshay Pawar, Adv. Revenue by :Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR) Date of hearing : 29/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 05/02/2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.5862 & CO No.410/Mum/2025 Himanshu Sarda O R D E R Per Bench: The instant appeal of the revenue and cross-objection of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [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 15.07.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, Income tax Department (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’), order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 05.05.2023. 2. The registry inform that the cross-objection filed by the assessee with a delay for 37 days. The assessee explained the delay and filed the prayer for condonation of delay. We found there is sufficient cause for delay in filing the cross objection. Ld. DR had not made any objection against the submission of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay for 37 days for filing CO is duly condoned and the appeal is taken for adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return by declaring total income 1,00,000/-. However, the assessee had sold the property for agreement value of Rs.25,00,000/- as against the stamp duty value of the 15,38,83,500/- during the impugned assessment year. The notice u/sec. 148 of the Act was issued and after the substitute of Financial year 2021 and construed or treated to be the said notice as 148A in terms of section 148A(b) of the Act by considering the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs Ashish Agarwal, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC). The reassessment was completed and the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.5862 & CO No.410/Mum/2025 Himanshu Sarda assessee was unable to submit any cost of acquisition or cost of improvement of the said property. So the Ld. AO adopted the entire stamp duly value amount of Rs.1,53,83,500/- as capital gain and is added back with the total income of the assessee. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved the revenue filed an appeal before us and on contrary the assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO for issuance of notice u/sec. 148 of the Act by filing the cross objection. C.O. 410/Mum/2025 4. The Ld. AR raised a preliminary objection regarding the validity of the sanction granted under section 151 of the Act for the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. In support of his contention, the Ld. AR filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 13, which has been taken on record. He drew our attention to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 11.06.2021, placed at APB pages 3 to 7, wherein the approval for issuance of the said notice was accorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai (Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai). He further invited our attention to the proceedings under section 148A(d) of the Act, initiated pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04.05.2022 in UOI vs Ashish Agarwal, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC), placed at pages 8 to 11 of the APB, wherein the Ld. AO stated that the requisite approval for passing the order under section 148A(d) and for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act had been obtained from Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai. The Ld. AR submitted that the sanction granted by the Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai beyond the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.5862 & CO No.410/Mum/2025 Himanshu Sarda prescribed period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year was contrary to law and, therefore, vitiated the entire reassessment proceedings. 5. In furtherance of his submissions, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Alag Property Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) reported in 179 taxmann.com 578 (Bom), and reproduced the relevant paragraphs 11 to 14 thereof as under: “11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has drawn an illustration in para 78 of its order in the context of A.Y. 2017-18 (which is also the relevant Assessment year in the present Writ Petition) wherein it is categorically held that the authority specified under section 151(1) can accord sanction only upto 30.06.2021. This illustration makes it absolutely clear that when the period of three years from end of relevant Assessment Year expired between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021, the extension by virtue of TOLA was upto 30.06.2021 and not beyond. Thus, it can be said that the period of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year (in the present case A.Y. 2017-18) cxpired on 30.06.2021, whereas Respondent No.1, despite passing order under section 148A(d) on 18.08 2022, and issuing notice under section 148 on 23.08.2022 [in respect of Assessment Year 2017-181, has obtained approval of Respondent No.2 who is not the authority as prescribed under section 151(4) 12. Non-compliance by Respondent No.1 with the provisions contained in Section 148A(d) read with Section 151(i) vitiates the jurisdiction of Respondent No.I to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. 13. We are clearly of the view that the present matter stands covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and we are bound by it. Accordingly, we hold that the order dated 18.08.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice issued under section 148 dated and 23.08.2022 are bad in law, and hence, are required to be quashed and set aside. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.5862 & CO No.410/Mum/2025 Himanshu Sarda 14. We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 18.08.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice issued under section 148 dated 23.08.2022, and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom.” 6. Respectful reliance was also placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai – I Bench, in the case of Shabbir Taheri v. ITO, ITA No. 1574/Mum/2025, pronounced on 15.10.2025. The Hon’ble Vice President of the Mumbai Bench passed a concurrent order therein, and the relevant observations of the Bench are reproduced below: “6. As could be seen from the provision contained u/s. 151 of the Act reproduced above, as per clause (i), in a case where action u/s. 148 and Section 148A of the Act is initiated before expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority who can grant sanction/approval is the Principal Commissioner or Principal Director General or Commissioner or Director of Income Tax. However, as per clause (ii), if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority, who can grant sanction is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General is available then Chief Commissioner or Director General of Income Tax. It is noteworthy, akin to third and fourth provisos, which were incorporated in Section 149(1) of the Act under the new regime effective from 01.04.2021, no corresponding amendment was made to Section 151 of the Act. By virtue of Finance Act, 2023 effective from 01.04.2023, the following proviso was added to Section 151 of the Act. “Provided that the period of three years for the purposes of Clause (i) shall be computed after taking into account, the period of limitation as excluded by the third, fourth and fifth provisos or extended by the sixth proviso to sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act.” 7. Thus, as per Section 151 of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Finance Act, 2023, the limitation prescribed under Clause (i) of Section 151 of the Act was prior to expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and without benefit of further extension in terms with third, fourth or fifth proviso under sub section (1) of Section 149 of the Act. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 11. Similar view was reiterated by the Coordinate Bench in case of ACIT vs. Asha P. Kedia (Supra). It is relevant to observe, though the aforesaid decisions of the Coordinate Benches were Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.5862 & CO No.410/Mum/2025 Himanshu Sarda rendered at a prior point of time and were available when the appeal of Albert Joseph Rozario (Supra) vs. ITO (Supra) was taken up before another Coordinate Bench, however, either knowingly or unknowingly, these decisions of the Coordinate Benches were not brought to the notice of the learned Bench. It appears so, because, there is no reference of these decisions in case of Albert Joseph Rozario vs. ITO (Supra). Had these decisions of Coordinate Benches been brought to the notice of learned Bench deciding the case of Albert Joseph Rozario (Supra), a different view might have been taken. In any case of the matter, the point of time from which the proviso to Section 151 of the Act would be applicable was considered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in at least four judgments. Three of these judgments have already been referred to in the decision of my learned brother Accountant Member. Even in case of Agnello Oswin Dias vs. ACIT [2014] 161 taxmann.com 16 (Bombay), the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, while reiterating the view that after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Act is PCCIT, has held that the proviso to Section 151 of the Act having been inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2023 shall not be applicable prior to 01.04.2023. Meaning thereby, the proviso will not have retrospective effect. These decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, being directly on the issue, constitute binding precedents. 12. In any case of the matter, Sections 149 and 151 of the Act have been enacted for different purposes and operate in different situations. While Section 149 of the Act, prescribes limitation for issuance of notice u/s. 148 and 148A of the Act, Section 151 of the Act prescribes the timeline for the specified authority to grant sanction for Section 148 and 148A of the Act. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be observed that prior to insertion of proviso u/s. 151 of the Act by Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. 01.04.2023, the specified authority who can grant sanction for initiating proceedings u/s. 148A and issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act after expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year is PCCIT/CCIT in terms with Section 151(ii) of the Act. Hence, in absence of any enabling provision u/s. 151 of the Act, the 3rd, 4th and 5th or 6th provisos of Section 149(1) of the Act cannot be read into Section 151 of the Act to extend the time limit u/s. 151(i) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.5862 & CO No.410/Mum/2025 Himanshu Sarda 13. In view of aforesaid, I fully agree with the decision of my learned brother Accountant Member that, both the order passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act and notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act are invalid due to lack of sanction by the specified authority as specified u/s. 151(ii) of the Act. As a natural corollary, the assessment order passed in consequence thereof is also invalid. Hence, the ground is allowed.” 7. The Ld. DR argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AR has raised a preliminary legal objection challenging the validity of the sanction granted under section 151 of the Act for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. On examination of the notice dated 11.06.2021 and the subsequent order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, it is evident that the approval for initiation of reassessment proceedings beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai. The legal position with regard to the competent authority for granting sanction under section 151 of the Act, prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2023, is now well settled. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Alag Property Construction Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has categorically held that where the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired, sanction under section 151(i) could not have been accorded by the Principal Commissioner, and such sanction renders the reassessment proceedings void ab initio. The said judgment, being rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court, is binding on us. We further find that the Co- ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in Shabbir Taheri (supra), after an Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.5862 & CO No.410/Mum/2025 Himanshu Sarda exhaustive analysis of sections 149 and 151 of the Act, has reiterated that prior to 01.04.2023, sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 after expiry of three years could be granted only by the authority specified under section 151(ii) of the Act, namely the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, and that the proviso inserted by the Finance Act, 2023 has no retrospective application. In the present case, it is undisputed that the sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 and for passing the order under section 148A(d) of the Act was granted by the Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai, who was not the competent authority prescribed under section 151(ii) of the Act. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings. In view of the binding judicial precedents and the settled legal position, we hold that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, and all proceedings consequential thereto are invalid and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the reassessment proceedings are hereby quashed. 9. As the reassessment itself is held to be invalid on legal grounds, the issues raised on merits do not survive for adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.5862 & CO No.410/Mum/2025 Himanshu Sarda 10. Accordingly, the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee in CO No. 410/Mum/2025 is allowed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No. 5862/Mum/2025 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th day of February 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 05/02/2026 SAUMYASr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/The Appellant , 2. Ůितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुƅ CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाडŊफाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI Printed from counselvise.com "