LALIT SURAJPRAKASH GARG,MUMBAI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6126/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the assessee, Lalit Surajprakash Garg, against the reassessment orders for several assessment years issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle \\u2013 6(2). The primary legal contention raised by the assessee was the invalidity of the notices issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to them being issued beyond the permissible time limit. The tribunal examined the applicability of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) and the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. The tribunal found that the notices were indeed issued beyond the extended time limit and thus were void ab initio.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112273 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs CIT, Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM KRISHN KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV BANSAL
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Reassessment proceedings; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 147; 148; 132; 22; 13; 153C; 20

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 6122/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) ITA 6123/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) ITA 6124/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) ITA 6125/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) ITA 6126/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Lalit Surajprakash Garg, 6308, 4th Phase, Upper Govind Nagar, Malad (East), Mumbai–400097, Maharashtra v/s. बनाम Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 6(2), Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai–400051, Maharashtra \u0001थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AEHPG8197B Appellant/अपीलाथ\u0007 .. Respondent/\b तवाद Date of Hearing 08.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 15.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.]: - The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the orders of even dates as passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), CIT(A)-54, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as Appellant by : Shri Gaurav Bansal,CA Respondent by : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR) P a g e | 2 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment orders passed u/s.147/144Bof the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”]for Assessment Years [A.Y.] 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18. Since most of the issues are common and also the fact that appeals were heard together, they are being taken up together for adjudication vide this composite order for the sake of brevity. 2. It may be stated at the outset that in the course of hearing before us, the assessee has raised certain Additional grounds of appeal whereby it has challenged the validity of the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act as well reassessment orders in all the above assessment years claiming to be bad in law and ab initio void.Since the grounds are legal in nature and go into the very roots of the assessment orders, in the light of the decision of in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC),they are admitted for adjudication at the outset in the paras to follow. ITA 6122/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14)& ITA 6123/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) Additional Ground(common in both the AYs): 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O. is an invalid notice and the reassessment order passed thereafter is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad-in-law. P a g e | 3 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has erred by issuing the notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 after the Surviving Time Limit. In this regard, the assessee relies on the judicial decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). 3. Since the facts involved in both the above captioned appeals are exactly identical as also the applicable provisions of the Act,they are being adjudicated together as below. 4. Before us in the course of hearing, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the notices issued under section 148 of the Act in both the AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are beyond the limitation period provided in section 149(1) of the Act,and therefore, the re-assessment orders passed are void ab initio. He contented that in both the years,based on certain information,the AO issued original notices u/s 148 of the Act on 28.06.2021.Subsequently, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC), these notices were to be issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act. Later,vide show cause notices dated 31.05.2022, the information and materials relied upon by the Revenue were provided to the assessee and time was granted to the assessee to respond was on or before 14.06.2022 in terms of the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act.No reply was received from the assessee.Notices under section 148 of the Act were issued by the AO. Subsequently,assessment orders P a g e | 4 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg were passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act by making certain additions.The ld. CIT(A)dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee and upheld the additions made by the AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us for both the years. 4.1 The ld. AR submitted that for the year under consideration, the AO had time only till 21.06.2022 to issue notice under section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 27.07.2022 for the assessment year 2013-14 as well as for AY 2014- 15 are barred by time limitation. Consequently, the re-assessment proceedings are invalid and bad in law. 5. We have carefully considered the rival and perused the materials on record.We have also gone through the relevant provisions of the Act and the applicable judicial decisions referred above.It would be relevant to consider the provisions of section 149 of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, which provide for the time limit for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Actas stated below: - \"Time limit for notice for notice u/s 148 149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year -- (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); P a g e | 5 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg (b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more for that year: Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub- section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021: Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in a case, where a notice under section 153A, or section 153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded: Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub-section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. Explanation -- For the purposes of clause (b) of this sub-section, \"asset\" shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151.\" 5.1 From the plain reading of the above provisions , it is evident that no notice under section 148 of the Act can be issued after the expiry of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) to section 149(1) of the Act. Further, clause (b) to section 149(1) of the Act provides the time period of 10 years to issue P a g e | 6 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg notice under section 148 of the Act, if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied. We find that the first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act specifically provides that no notice under section 148 of the Act, as per the amended provisions, can be issued at any time for assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of section 149(1)(b), as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. 5.2 Section 149 of the Act, prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, reads as follows: - \"Time limit for notice for notice u/s 148 149. (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, -- (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c); (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year; (c) if four years, but not more than sixteen years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment. Explanation.-- In determining income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the purposes of this sub-section, the provisions of Explanation 2 of section 147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. P a g e | 7 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg (3) If the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or recomputation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent of such non-resident, the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.\" 5.3 From the plain reading of section 149 of the Act, prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, it is evident that the same provides period of 4 years, up to 6 years, and up to 16 years for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, provided the conditions laid down therein are satisfied. In the appeals under consideration, the time limit of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, i.e., assessment year 2013-14, expired on 31.03.2018 and the period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year expired on 31.03.2020. Therefore, in the present case, the time period covered under the provisions of the TOLA, i.e. from 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021, includes 30.03.2020, i.e., 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. For AY 2014-15, the time limit of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment yearexpired on 31.03.2019 and the period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year expired on 31.03.2021.It is evident from the record that the original notices under section 148 of the Act were deemed to be notices issued under section 148A(b) of the Act pursuant to the decision P a g e | 8 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra), were issued on 28.06.2021. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) in paragraph-114(b) held that the TOLA will continue to apply to the Act after 01.04.2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Act falls for completion between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021. Therefore, as the period of 6 years from the end of the relevant assessment year expired on 31.03.2020 and 31.03.2021 respectively for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 , which fell within the period from 20.03.2020 to 31.03.2021, therefore, the notices issued on 28.06.2021, which were deemed to be noticed under section 148A(b) of the Act, are covered under the extended time limit till 30.06.2021 provided under the TOLA. 6. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the surviving time under the Act read with the TOLA will be available to the Revenue to complete the remaining proceedings in furtherance of the deemed notice, including issuance of re-assessment notice under section 148 of the Act under the new regime. While explaining the methodology for computation of the surviving or balance time limit, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-112 of Rajeev Bansal (supra) observed as follows: - P a g e | 9 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg \"112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old regime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed show cause notices will also come into effect from 1 May 2021. After accounting for all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days [days between 1 May 2021 and 30 June 2021] to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime. This time starts ticking for the assessing officer after receiving the response of the assessee. In this instance, if the assessee submits the response on 18 June 2022, the assessing officer will have sixty- one days from 18 June 2022 to issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the new regime. Thus, in this illustration, the time limit for issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the new regime will end on 18 August 2022.\" 7. Therefore, the surviving/balance time limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of deemed notice and 30.06.2021.The ld.AR has submitted tabulated date wise details of notices etc. for the AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 as below: AY 2013-14 1. Assessment Year 2013-14 2. Last date to issue notice under u/s 148 as per old law after extension by CBDT circular 31/03/2021 3. Extended deadline to issue notice u/s 148 as per TOLA and notifications issued 30/06/2021 4. Notice actually issued under old law in the present case 28/06/2021 5. Date of Supreme Court's order in Ashish Agarwal case 04/05/2022 6. Date of notice issued u/s 148A(b) in pursuance of Ashish Agarwal in present case 31/05/2022 7. Time limit to file the reply as per u/s 148A(b)- 14 days 14/06/2022 8. Reply filed by the assessee No Reply filed 9. Time excluded as per Rajeev Bansal 30/06/2021 to P a g e | 10 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg 14/06/2022 10. Time that was available/left to issue notice u/s 148 as per TOLA limit 2 days- 28/06/202 1 to 30/06/202 1 11. Extended time to be given as per fourth Proviso to section 149(1) 7 days from 14-06-2022, i.e. 21/06/2022 if one goes by the date of filing reply on 14- 06-2022. 12. Time limit to issue notice u/s 148 as per section 149 as amended by Finance Act 2021 and as per Rajeev Bansal case 21/06/2022, i.e, 7 days from 14- 06-2022. 13. Order passed w/s 148A(d) 27/07/2022 14. Actual date of notice u/s 148 27/07/2022 AY 2014-15 1. Assessment Year 2014-15 2. Last date to issue notice under u/s 148 as per old law 31/03/2021 3. Extended deadline to issue notice w/s 148 as per TOLA and notifications issued 30/06/2021 4. Notice actually issued under old law in the present case 28/06/2021 5. Date of Supreme Court's order in Ashish Agarwal case 04/05/2022 6. Date of notice issued u/s 148A(b) in pursuance of Ashish Agarwal in present case 31/05/2022 7. Time limit to file the reply as per u/s 1484(b)- 14 days 14/06/2022 8. Reply filed by the assessee No Reply filed 9. Time excluded as per Rajeev Bansal 30/06/2021 P a g e | 11 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg to 14/06/2022 10. Time that was available/left to issue notice u/s 148 as per TOLA limit 2 days- 28/06/202 1 to 30/06/202 1 11. Extended time to be given as per fourth Proviso to section 149(1) 7 days from 14-06-2022, i.e. 21/06/2022 if one goes by the date of filing reply on 14-06- 2022. 12. Time limit to issue notice u/s 148 as per section 149 as amended by Finance Act 2021 and as per Rajeev Bansal case 21/06/2022, ie, 7 days from 14- 06-2022. 13. Order passed w/s 148A(d) 27/07/2022 14. Actual date of notice u/s 148 27/07/2022 7.1 Therefore, in computing the surviving/balance time limit, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), we find that the Revenue had only 2 days (i.e., between 28/06/2021 to 30/06/2021) to issue notice under section 148 of the Act of the new regime in the present casein this case. No response was received from the assessee.Time limit to issue notice u/s 148 as per section 149 as amended by Finance Act 2021 and as per Rajeev Bansal case would be 21/06/2022, i.e, 7 days from 14-06-2022.However, in both the years under consideration, the notices under section P a g e | 12 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg 148 of the Act were issued on 27.07.2022, much after the surviving time period as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra).Thus,we find that even if the benefit of the fourth proviso to section 149 of the Act is granted to the Revenue, since the remaining period in the present case, after the exclusion of time period as provided in the third proviso to section 149 is less than 7 days, even then the notice dated 27.07.2022 under section 148 of the Act was issued much beyond the 7 days extension provided in the fourth proviso to section 149 of the Act. 8. Therefore, having considered the provisions of the Act, before as well as after the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021, and the TOLA, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev Bansal (supra), we are of the considered view that the notices issued under section 148 of the Act on 27.07.2022 for both AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are barred by limitation period specified under section 149 of the Act. Accordingly, notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 27.07.2022 are void ab initio and bad in law. Therefore, the same are quashed. Consequently, the re-assessment proceedings and assessment orders passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act are also quashed. P a g e | 13 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg 8.1 In view of the above decision quashing the assessment orders, thus allowing the additional grounds of appeal, other grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are academic only, and therefore, are left open. 9. In the result,ITA 6122/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) & ITA 6123/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) are allowed. 10. ITA 6124/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) Additional Grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 by the Ld. A.O. is an invalid notice and the reassessment order passed thereafter is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad- in-law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has erred by issuing the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 26/07/2022 for AY 2015- 16 since the same is barred by limitation. In this regard, the assessee relies on the judicial decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), wherein it is mentioned at para 19(f) that, “The Revenue /concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA.” 11. Since the grounds go into the roots of the entire proceedings in the relevant assessment years, they are being adjudicated together in the paras to follow.In the above assessment year,reassessment notice u/s 148 of the Act had been issued on 26.07.2022 P a g e | 14 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg which is matter of record and there is no dispute on it. In this regard, the ld.AR has claimed that in view of the departmental stand taken by the ld.Counsel of the Revenue before the hon’ble Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case,the proceeding are liable to be invalid. The ld.DR has not controverted his contentions in any manner. It may be stated here that in the case of Union of India and Others v. Rajeev Bansal(supra), the hon’ble Supreme Court considered the manner of applicability of the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [TOLA]. During the said proceedings, it was conceded on behalf of the Revenue that TOLA was not applicable for reopening the assessments for AY 2015-16. The said concession was recorded in paragraph 19(f) of the said decision. Paragraphs 19 (e) and 19(f) are relevant and are set out below: - \"(e) The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of the TOLA applies to the entire Income Tax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015- 2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be within the period of limitation as explained in the tabulation below:……………… (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the TOLA.\" P a g e | 15 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg 12. Therefore, having considered the above facts and the decision relied upon by the ld.AR, we are of the considered view that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on 26.07.2022 for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation period specified under section 149 of the Act. Accordingly, notice is void ab initio and bad in law. Therefore, the same is quashed. Consequently, the re- assessment proceeding and assessment order passed under section 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act are also quashed. 13. In view of the above decision quashing the assessment orders, thus allowing the additional grounds of appeal, other grounds raised by the assessee in the appeal are academic only, and therefore, are left open. 14. In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA 6124/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) is allowed. 15. ITA 6125/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) and ITA 6126/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Additional Grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. 1961 by the Ld. A.O. is an invalid noticeand the reassessment order passed thereafter is grossly incorrect, invalid and bad- in-law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. has erred by taking approval u/s 151(i) of the I. T. Act. 1961 from Pr. CIT. Central - 3, P a g e | 16 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg as against the requirement of approval to be taken u/s 151(ii) of the 1. T. Act, 1961 from Pr. CCIT. Hence, the notice issued u/s 148 is an invalid notice. 16. In the additional grounds no.1 and 2 above in both the above appeals, the assessee has contested the validity of the notice u/s 148 of the Act and the consequent reassessment order claiming that the orders have been passed without obtaining approval of appropriate authorities. Since the grounds are identical and go into the roots of the entire proceedings in both the assessment years i.e. 2016-17 and 2017- 18,they are being adjudicated together in the paras to follow. 17. Before us, during hearing of the appeal, the ld.Authorised Representative in support of the legal grounds has taken us through all the relevant facts of the case relating to action u/s 148 of the Act, present position of the law in this regard and also the legal implications arising on account of the recent decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to the instant issue.It is contented that order 148A(d) was passed with the approval of Pr.CIT-Centra-3,Mumbai.The notice u/s. 148 of the Act was also issued with the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income- tax,Central-3, Mumbai.The case of the appellant is covered by section 151(ii) of the Act which provides that where the notices for reassessment are issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the assessment year, the appropriate authority for the purpose of section P a g e | 17 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg 148 and section 148A of the Act is the Principle Chief Commissioner or Principle Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. As against this specific requirement of section 151(ii), it is clear that u/s 148A(d) as well as for the notice u/s. 148 the Assessing Officer had obtained prior approval from Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax,Central- 3, Mumbai. As such, the approval obtained by the AO is not in accordance with the provisions of section 151(ii).Therefore, the reassessment is liable to be quashed.Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC).Attention is drawn to paragraph 81 of the hon’ble Supreme Court judgment where it held as under: “Although this court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval u/s. 148A(a) and 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for section 148A(d) and section 148. Therefore, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148...” 18. In the course of hearing before us, the ld.DR relied on the orders of authorities below.In respect of legal contentions made by the ld.AR,he did not controvert the facts on record relating to the reassessment proceedings including order u/s 148A(d)as well. 19. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and find that on legality of the notice u/s 148 vis-a-vis sanctioning authority, the case of the P a g e | 18 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg assessee is squarely covered by the above mentioned decision of hon’ble Apex Court(supra) which has been elaborately considered by the coordinate Bench in the case of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Munish Financial, Mumbai dated 02.12.2024 in ITA No. 5055/Mum/2024and on identical facts of the case,quashed the reassessment order. 19.1 The instant case in AY 2016-17 was taken up for reassessment by the notice dated 28.06.2021.Relevant assessment year in the case is 2016-17. The reassessment was initiated after a period of three years from the end of the assessment year.The order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act was passed by the AO on 27.07.2022.Fresh notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer on 27.07.2022. It is evident that while passing the order u/s 148A(d), the AO had obtained the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax,Central-3, Mumbai. This fact is mentioned at paras 3.3 and 3.5 of the order. Further, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was also issued with the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income- tax,Central-3, Mumbai, a fact on record uncontroverted by the ld.DR. 19.2 Likewise AY 2017-18 was taken up for reassessment by the notice dated 28.06.2021. Relevant assessment year in the case is 2017-18. The reassessment was initiated after period of three years from the end of P a g e | 19 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg the assessment year. The order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act was passed by the AO on 27.07.2022.Fresh notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the on 27.07.2022. It is evident that while passing the order u/s 148A(d), the AO had obtained the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income- tax,Central-3, Mumbai. This fact is mentioned at paras 3.3 and 3.5 of the order. Further, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was also issued with the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax,Central-3, Mumbai,a fact on record uncontroverted by the ld.DR. 19.3. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the AO to assume jurisdiction under Section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 (ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. We find merits in the contention of the ld.AR that case of the appellant is covered by section 151(ii) of the Act which provides that where the notices for reassessment are issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the assessment year, the appropriate authority for the purpose of section 148 and section 148A of the Act is the Principle Chief Commissioner or Principle Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General.As against this specific requirement of section 151(ii), it is clear from the order u/s. 148A(d) and the notice u/s. 148 that obtained prior approval from Pr. Commissioner of Income- P a g e | 20 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg tax,Central-3, Mumbai. As such, the approval obtained by him is not in accordance with the provisions of section 151(ii).Accordingly, we hold that the notices under section 148 for both the AY s 2016-17 and 2017-18 are invalid and the consequent reassessment orders under section 147 are hereby quashed. 20. Since we have already quashed the order under section 147 based on the above proposition itself, other grounds relating to merits of the case have become academic and therefore, do not warrant any adjudication. 21. In the result, the appeals in ITA 6125/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) and ITA 6126/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) are allowed. 22. In the result, all the above captioned appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14,2014-15,2015-16,2016-17 and 2017-18 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP GOSAIN PRABHASH SHANKAR (\u0014ाियकसद\u0017 /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकारसद\u0017/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) P a g e | 21 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg Place: मुंबई/Mumbai \bदनांक /Date 15.04.2025 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno आदेश की \u0018ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\b / The Appellant 2. थ\b / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0011 / CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड\u001b फाईल / Guard file. स ािपत ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. P a g e | 22 ITA No. 6122, 6123, 6124, 6125, 6126/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15,2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Lalit Surajprakash Garg Sr. No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Order dictated on Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft Placed before author Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member Sr.PS/PS 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS JM/AM 6 Order pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which file goes to the AR 10 Date of Dispatch of order "