INCOME TAX , MUMBAI V. YASHMIN PARVEEN RAFAT AHMED, MUMBAI

MA 265/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had quashed the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2017-18. The Revenue sought to correct a typographic error in the order and challenged the Tribunal's decision on the grounds that the notice under Section 148 was issued within the permissible period under the relevant law. However, the Tribunal upheld its original decision, citing the lack of prior sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act and referencing a Supreme Court decision that supported the applicability of the extended time period for issuing notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829441 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Rajiv Bansal Vs. Union of India
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY SINGH AW AKSHAY
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 265/Mum/2025 Arising Out of I.T.A. No. 5424/Mum/2024 A.Y: 2017-18 The ITO(IT)-4(1)(1), Room No.629, 6th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Avenue-3, BKC, Bandra(East), Mumbai- 400021 Vs Yashmeen Praveen Rafat Ahmed, Flat No.C-5014, C Wing, 5th Floor, Gulraj Tower, Nehru Nagar, Kurla, Mumbai-400024 PAN – BJRPR2229H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ajay Singh a/w Shri Akshay Pawar Revenue by Shri Krishna Kumar Date of Hearing 09.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 14.01.2026 ORDER Per: SMT. BEENA PILLAI, J.M.:- Present miscellaneous application filed by the revenue arises out of order dated 31.12.2024 passed by this Tribunal for Assessment Year 2017-18 1. The Ld. DR submitted that a typographic error that crypt in the impugned order referring to the Page-1 of the impugned order. The Ld. DR submitted that the present appeal pertain to assessment year 2017-18 however, in the first paragraph the impugned order is been inadvertently mentioned as 2015-16. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 5424/Mum/2024 ITO(IT)-4(1)(1), Mumbai. 2. On the perusal of the record it is noted that the typographic mistake deserves to be corrected, henceforth the paragraph shall be read as under:- “Present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 19.08.2024 by NFAC Delhi for assessment year 2017-18 on following original grounds of appeal:-” 3. The next issued that raised the Ld. DR has is regarding the notice issued under Section 148 dated 13.07.2022 held to be bad in law in the impugned order. The Ld. DR submitted that TOLA is applicable to the year under consideration as the notice is issued within the period of three years. He submitted that this Tribunal thus erred in quashing the reassessment proceeding to be bad in law. 3.1 On perusal of the impugned order it is noted that the decision of this Tribunal is based on the ground that the notice was not issued with the prior sanction of the appropriate authority under Section 151 of the Act. Even otherwise on issue raised by the Ld.DR during this miscellaneous petition, is covered against the revenue as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajiv Bansal Vs. Union of India reported in (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 wherein Hon’ble Court categorically noted the period within which the notice has to be issued and the manner in which the extended time period of TOLA would be applicable. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 5424/Mum/2024 ITO(IT)-4(1)(1), Mumbai. 3.2 In any event the view taken by this Tribunal in the impugned order is not on this aspect received by the Ld. DR. It is therefore, not allowable under Section 254(2) of the Act to raise new issue in a miscellaneous petition, the Ld. DR has not been able to make out a call of mistake apparent on record. 3.3 Accordingly, this issued on the miscellaneous Petition raised by the Ld. DR cannot be entertained on the second issue.. In the result, the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue is partially allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14/01/2026 (BEENA PILLAI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai: Dated: /01/2026 Aniket Chand, Sr. PS. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 5424/Mum/2024 ITO(IT)-4(1)(1), Mumbai. Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 09.01.26 Sr.PS/PS 2. Draft placed before author .01.26 Sr.PS/PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 9. Date on which file goes to the AR 10. Date of dispatch of Order Printed from counselvise.com "