The assessee, engaged in stock broking and financial services, had filed its return which was assessed under section 143(3). Subsequently, on the basis of information received from search and survey in the case of Naresh Jain group (providing accommodation entries in penny stocks), the assessment was reopened under section 148 with the sanction of the PCIT. The AO made an addition of ₹16.86 lakhs as bogus loss, which was upheld by the CIT(A). On further appeal, the Tribunal admitted additional grounds challenging the validity of sanction. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in UOI v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) and Bombay High Court decision in Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom) (HC)  it held that since the reopening pertained to AY 2015-16, the sanctioning authority under section 151(2) was the JCIT and not the PCIT. Sanction from a higher authority does not cure the defect. Consequently, the notice under section 148 was invalid and the reassessment order was quashed as null and void. Other grounds were rendered academic. Appeal of assessee allowed. (ITA No. 5938/Mum/2024  dt. 26.08.2025 (AY.  2015-16 )