MR. IQBAL ISSA PATEL ,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 41(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3400/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Iqbal Issa Patel, the appellant, who challenged the reopening of his income tax assessment for the year 2017-18 by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary legal issue was the validity of the notice issued for reopening the assessment, which the appellant argued was beyond the prescribed period of limitation under section 149(1)(a) of the Act and lacked the necessary approval under section 151(ii). The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in NTPC V/s. CIT and a jurisdictional High Court decision, found the notice to be time-barred and thus invalid, leading to the quashing of both the notice and the subsequent assessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773139 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: NTPC V/s. CIT(1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), Ramesh Bachulal Mehta Vs. ITO in Writ Petition No. 271 of 2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKASH CHANDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH CHHAJED AW
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3400/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2017-18 Mr. Iqbal Issa Patel Flat No. 902, 9th Floor, Fatima Tower, Beside Noorani Masjid, MH Pathan Road, Malad (E), Mumbai – 400 097. Vs ITO – 41(3)(2) Koutilya Bhavan Mumbai - 51 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Subhash Chhajed a/w Shri Sunil Vakawala Revenue by Shri Vikash Chandra, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 11.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Ld. AR has filed an application for seeking permission to raise additional ground of appeal. 3. From the contents of the application I noticed that assessee has raised legal ground thereby challenging the ground of validity of the noticed issued for reopening of the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3400/Mum/2025 Mr. Iqbal Issa Patel Mumbai. assessment as the same has been issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s 149(1)(a) of the Act and the approval has not been sought from the appropriate authority specified u/s 151(ii) of the Act. Since this ground now raised by the assessee is legal in question and goes to the roots of the case and no separate documents or verification is required at this stage to adjudicate the said ground. Therefore, while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC V/s. CIT(1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) . I allow the application for raising additional ground and consequently the said ground is admitted to be heard on merits. 4. Since the assessee has raised legal ground thereby challenging the validity of notice in question therefore I have decided to take this issue firstly as it goes to the roots of the case. 5. At the very outset it is an admitted fact that the alleged income in the present case is of Rs. 36,03,504/- i.e less than Rs. 50 lakhs therefore as per provisions of Sec. 149(1)(a) of the Act no notice for reopening be issued after the lapse of three years from the end of the assessment year if the income escapement is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. In the present case the facts are not disputed or controverter. Thus on the very first day the notice issued by the revenue dated 23.07.2022 is barred by limitation. Therefore taking in to consideration the decision referred Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3400/Mum/2025 Mr. Iqbal Issa Patel Mumbai. before me of Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Ramesh Bachulal Mehta Vs. ITO in Writ Petition No. 271 of 2023 and considering the facts of the case, I quash the notice dated 23.07.2022 as the same is barred by limitation, thus allow this ground of appeal. 6. Since I have allowed Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee and quashed the notice therefore consequential assessment order passed in the present case also stands quashed. Other grounds raised by the assessee are kept open. 7. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no orders as to cost. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/09/2025 Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai: Dated: 23/09/2025 KRK, Sr. PS. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 3400/Mum/2025 Mr. Iqbal Issa Patel Mumbai. 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 Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 03.09.25 Sr.PS/PS 2. Draft placed before author 04.09.25 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 "