MAIMUNBI HUSEN BEPARI,SANGLI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGLI

ITA 2986/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Maimunbi Husen Bepari, the appellant, who contested the reassessment order for the assessment year 2017-18 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Sangli. The reassessment was based on information from a search operation related to the Allan Group, where Bepari was identified as a supplier. The primary legal contention was the improper approval for the reassessment notice under section 148, which was supposed to be sanctioned by the Pr.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax but was instead approved by the Pr.Commissioner. The Tribunal referenced a similar case, Mahesh Gokuldas Fulwani, to support its decision to quash the reassessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848172 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Pune
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: UOI vs Rajeev Bansal, Mahesh Gokuldas Fulwani ITA 873/PUN/2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAILEE DHOLE; THROUGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD SHINGTE
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2986/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Maimunbi Husen Bepari, 659 Raviwar Peth, Madhavnagar, Sangli-416406 Maharashtra PAN-AHZPB1282H Vs. ITO, Ward-5, Sangli Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by Sailee Dhole, JCIT (through virtual) Date of hearing 23-03-2026 Date of Pronouncement 27-03-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(appeal)(NFAC) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2017-18 dated 20/11/2025 emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) rws 147 dated 11/03/2023. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A). NFAC erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessment proceedings are bad in law inasmuch as: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2986/PUN/2025 2 a. The order u/s 148A(d) and the notice u/s 148 is issued by the approval of PCIT as against the required approval of the PCCIT in terms of provisions of S.151(1)(回) b. The notice u/s 148 is barred by limitation since the is issued after expiry of the surviving period as per the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs Rajeev Bansal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in retaining addition @3% of the turnover ie. of Rs.37,14,704 as against 4% made by the AO confirming his action of rejecting the audited books of the appellant on certain allegations, not considering the actual margins in the business of the appellant being very low. The appellant prays that the addition be deleted. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above ground of appeal or raise a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing. Findings and Analysis : In this case Assessee had filed return of Income on 31/10/2027 declaring total income at Rs.1035950/- for AY 2017-18. It is mentioned in the Assessment order that Assessee is in the business of supplying animals to slaughter house. There was a search in the case of Allan Group. Assessee is one of the suppliers of Allan Group as mentioned in the Assessment Order.Based on the information the Assessing Officer (AO) issued Notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act .Then the AO passed an order u/s 148A(d) on 20/07/2022 and issued Notice u/s 148 dated 20/07/2022 for AY 2017-18. (copy of the Notice is at 7-8 of the paper book filed by AR). At the outset ld.Authorised Representative of the Assessee invited our attention to the Notice u/s 148 and Order u/s 148A(d) which are at Page 7-17 of the paper book. Ld.AR submitted that the Order u/s 148A(d) and the Notice u/s 148 has been approved by the Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Pune. Ld.AR submitted that as per Section 151 after a lapse of three years from the end of the Assessment year, approval of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2986/PUN/2025 3 Pr.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or equivalent Officer. Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court and ITAT Pune filed in the paper book. Ld.DR relied on the order of the AO and CIT(A). In this case we have perused the Notice u/s 148 for AY 2017-18 dated 20/07/2022 which is at page 7-8 of the paper book. The said Notice has been approved by Pr.CIT-1 Pune on 04/07/2022 vide reference no. PN/Pr.CIT-1/148/2022-23/1130dated 04/07/2022. The Notice u/s 148 issued by ITO is scanned and reproduced here under : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2986/PUN/2025 4 ITAT Pune in the case of Mahesh Gokuldas Fulwani ITA 873/PUN/2025 AY 2017-18 vide order dated 30/072025 has held as under : Quote, “ 11. Since admittedly in the instant case the approval has been granted by the PCIT instead of Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, therefore, such approval being not in accordance with law is not a valid approval. Therefore, such improper approval obtained u/s 151 of the Act vitiates the re-assessment proceedings. We, therefore, hold that the re-assessment proceedings being not in accordance with law, has to be quashed. We accordingly quash the re-assessment proceedings. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee challenging the re-assessment proceedings is accordingly allowed. ” Unquote. In the case of the Assessee Notice u/s 148 has been issued for AY 2017-18 after a lapse of Three Years from the end of the assessment year hence as per Section 151(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act approval of Pr.Chief Commissioner was required but in the case of the Assessee the Notice u/s 148 has been approved by Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, hence it is not a valid approval as per Section 151 of the Act. Respectfully following the decision of ITAT Pune in Mahesh Fulwani(supra) we hold that the Notice u/s 148 is bad in law and accordingly the consequential Assessment Order is void ab initio. In the result Ground Number 1 regarding Approval ,raised by the Assessee is allowed. Since we have allowed Ground number 1 of the Assessee we dismiss other grounds as unadjudicated. In the Result Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced on this 27th day of March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DIPAK RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; दिन ांक / Dated: 27 March, 2026. Neeta Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2986/PUN/2025 5 आिेश की प्रतितितप अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीि र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभ गीय प्रतितनति, आयकर अपीिीय अतिकरण, \"SMC\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"SMC\" Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ इि / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीिीय अतिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "