The assessment was reopened via notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) Bench, Mumbai quashed the Income Tax Notice and Order issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without jurisdiction. The Appellant, Pankaj Suresh Rach was represented by Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, A/R. The facts of the cases are on the basis of specific information received from the office of CCIT (Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Central), Mumbai with reference of DIT (I&CI) (Directorate of Income Tax (Intelligence), Mumbai, letter date 25/03/2019, that assessee had, during the year under consideration sold the immovable property at a consideration of Rs.48,00,000/- below the stamp duty value of Rs.57,01,500/- in violation of Section 50C of the Act. Get a Copy of Income Tax Rules with FREE e-book access, Click here After recording the reasons for reopening and after obtaining necessary approval from appropriate authorities, assessment was re-opened via notice u/s 148 of the Act on 01/05/2021. Honoring the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal vs. UOI in Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 vide order dt. 04/05/2022, the AO issued notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. In compliance to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), the underlying material and the documents on which the show-cause notice is based, were provided to the assessee on 28/05/2022. The entire quarrel revolves around this notice. Get a Copy of Income Tax Rules with FREE e-book access, Click here The continuing disagreement is that the sanction accorded u/s 151 of the Act. As the assessment was reopened beyond three years, sanction is required from CCIT whereas in the case of assessee, sanction has been obtained from CIT (Commissioner of Income-tax). This issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2023] Further on perusal of the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment, the escapement of income is only Rs. 9,00,000/- and for which alleged escapement is less than Rs.50,00,000/-, notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation considering Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. This issue has been duly considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ganesh Dass Khanna vs. ITO [2023]. Get a Copy of Income Tax Rules with FREE e-book access, Click here The ITAT Bench comprising of Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member and Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Accountant Member observed that based on the facts and the two judicial decisions discussed hereinabove, the court is of the view that the impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is without the jurisdiction and hence set aside making the resultant re-assessment order null and void. Since the re-assessment order has been quashed, we find it not necessary to delve into the merits of the case. Accordingly the ground argued by the assessee is allowed. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. The Respondent, Income Tax Officer, Mumbai represented by Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT D/R.