{"id":56991,"date":"2025-10-09T20:25:04","date_gmt":"2025-10-09T14:55:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/?post_type=qa&p=56991"},"modified":"2025-10-09T20:25:04","modified_gmt":"2025-10-09T14:55:04","slug":"reopening-for-ay-2016-17","status":"publish","type":"qa","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/qa\/reopening-for-ay-2016-17\/","title":{"rendered":"Reopening for AY 2016-17"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reassessment Summary \u2013 A.Y. 2017-18<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. \n

    Original Notice u\/s 148<\/strong>
    The first notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), Ward 31(1)(1), Mumbai<\/strong> on 27.04.2021<\/strong>, i.e., during the transition period<\/em> between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Subsequent Proceedings post-Ashish Agarwal Judgment<\/strong>
    After the Ashish Agarwal<\/em> decision of the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court, a notice under section 148A(b)<\/strong> was issued on 26.05.2022<\/strong> by ITO Ward 2(2)(3), Mumbai<\/strong> (a different officer).
    Thereafter, the order u\/s 148A(d)<\/strong> and fresh notice u\/s 148<\/strong> were issued on 30.07.2022<\/strong>, after obtaining approval from the PCIT<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Issues for Consideration<\/h3>\n
      \n
    1. \n

      Jurisdictional Validity of Notice<\/strong>
      The reassessment notice u\/s 148 can be issued only by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

        \n
      • \n

        If the subsequent notice (by Ward 2(2)(3)) was issued by an officer other than the JAO<\/em>, such notice is without jurisdiction<\/strong> and therefore invalid<\/strong> in law.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n

      • \n

        Escapement Below \u20b950 Lakhs<\/strong>
        As the alleged escapement of income is less than \u20b950 lakhs<\/strong>, the reassessment itself is barred by limitation<\/strong> and invalid<\/strong>, as held by the Mumbai ITAT in:<\/p>\n

          \n
        • \n

          Amina Aslam Qureshi v. ITO<\/em> \u2013 (ITA No. 769\/Mum\/2025)<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

        • \n

          Mrs. Nayna Ashok Shah v. ITO<\/em> \u2013 ITA No. 6247\/Mum\/2024<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

        • \n

          Pankaj Chandrakant Pimple v. ITO<\/em> [2025] 174 taxmann.com 169 (Mum-Trib.)<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n

        • \n

          Invalid Approval by PCIT as approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General is required.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","qa_expert":[1275],"qa_category":[23],"qa_tag":[136],"class_list":["post-56991","qa","type-qa","status-publish","hentry","qa_expert-law-intern","qa_category-income-tax","qa_tag-reassessment"],"acf":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/qa\/56991","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/qa"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/qa"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56991"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56991"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"qa_expert","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/qa_expert?post=56991"},{"taxonomy":"qa_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/qa_category?post=56991"},{"taxonomy":"qa_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/qa_tag?post=56991"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}