ITAT · Mumbai Bench2024§148 · §151

Arihant Engineers · ITAT Mumbai on §148/§151: sanction from an improper authority is void ab initio

What happens when the §148 sanction comes from the wrong authority after three years?

The notice is void ab initio. Beyond the three-year limit, sanction must come from the prescribed higher authority; PCIT approval did not suffice.

Published 2026-07-07

Facts in brief

  • The JAO issued a notice for AY 2018-19 on 22-04-2022 with the approval of the Principal CIT.
  • The notice fell beyond the three-year limit, attracting the higher sanctioning authority prescribed by §151.

Issue before the bench

Whether PCIT sanction sustains a beyond-three-years reopening, and whether the JAO route was open at all.

Held

The sanctioning authority was not the one prescribed for the extended period; the JAO also failed to follow the mandatory process.

The notice was ruled invalid and the entire reassessment quashed.

Practitioner takeaway

Match the sanction authority to the elapsed period as the first check on any post-2021 reopening: the three-year line changes who must approve.

More on this topic: Section 148 & 148A: Reassessment case law · Need this drafted? Reassessment & Section 148 Support for CA Firms

Related rulings

WhatsApp the teamCall now