S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-After the expiry of four years-Sanction u/s. 151 was issued by CIT(E) instead of joint Commissioner-Wrong authority-Effect of TOLA-Relying on Rajeev Bansal order reassessment notice and consequential order was quashed. [S. 147, 148, 151(2), TOLA, 2020, Art. 226]
On writ against the reassessment order , allowing the petition the Court held that where a notice u/s 148 for A.Y. 2015-16 was issued on 28.03.2021, the extended limitation under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 applied, and therefore the case continued to fall within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year; consequently, as per the unamended Section 151(2), sanction for issuance of notice could be granted only by the Joint Commissioner and not by the Commissioner. Since in the present case the approval was admittedly granted by the CIT (Exemption), Pune, the notice suffered from lack of jurisdiction and was void ab initio. The Court rejected the Revenue’s contention that internal routing through the Joint/Additional Commissioner cured the defect, holding that where the statute mandates satisfaction of a particular authority, sanction by any other authority is impermissible. Relying upon UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 Taxmann.com 70 /2024) 340 CTR 865 / 242 DTR 297 / 301 Taxman 238 / 469 ITR 46 (SC ) and earlier Bombay High Court Chetan Gopaldas Cholera v ACIT (WP. No. 3474 of 2022 decided on 6th October, 2025), Prabhakar Nerulkar v. PCIT, Panji, Goa (2025)177 taxmann.com 580(Bom)( HC) Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom.) (HC ) quashed both the notice u/s 148 and the consequent reassessment order. (W.P. No. 5164 of 2022 dt. 12-1-2026)(AY. 2015-16)
Swami Shanti Prakash Ashram Trust v. ACIT (E), (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org.
[Coram : Hon’ble Shri Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Hon’ble Shri Justice Firdosh Pooniwalla]