Case Details: Income Tax officer (International Taxation) vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry Sterlin Bay - [2025] 180 taxmann.com 870 (Mumbai-Trib.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Amit Shukla, Judicial Member & Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member
-
Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR for the Appellant.
-
Porus Kaka, Sr. Adv. & Divesh Chawla, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, a non-resident individual, filed returns of income for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing notices under section 148 of the old regime. Pursuant to the amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 and directions of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal, fresh proceedings were initiated, and notices under section 148 were issued on 30-07-2022 under the new regime.
For A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment on the ground that approval under section 151(ii) was obtained from the CIT (International Taxation) instead of the specified authority, i.e., the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner, as required where more than three years had elapsed.
The Commissioner (Appeals) quashed the reassessment proceedings on the same ground. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal.
ITAT Held
The Tribunal held that, for A.Y. 2016-17, the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, and the alleged escaped income exceeded Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, prior approval from the specified authority under section 151(ii) was mandatorily required. As approval had been obtained only from the CIT (IT) and not from the specified higher authority, the notice and consequent reassessment were held to be invalid.
Accordingly, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the CIT(A), quashed the notice issued under section 148 and the consequential reassessment orders for the assessment year, and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Praful Arjun Rane v. ITO, IT [IT Appeal No.1046 (MUM) of 2025, dated 30-9-2025] [Para 6.2] Followed
- Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64/286 Taxman 183/444 ITR 1 (SC)
- Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC) (para 13.5) followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64/286 Taxman 183/444 ITR 1 (SC) (para 5)
- Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70/301 Taxman 238/469 ITR 46 (SC) (para 5)
- Praful Arjun Rane v. ITO, IT [IT Appeal No.1046 (MUM) of 2025, dated 30-9-2025] (para 6.2).
The post Section 148 Notice Invalid Without Approval Under Section 151(ii) | ITAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
