IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TRUSHA TUSHAR ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2025.08.21 10:52:14 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 271 OF 2023 Ramesh Bachulal Mehta .. Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Adv. Devendra H. Jain a/w. Adv. Shashank Ajay Mehta i/b. Adv.

Kashyap Chothani for the Applicant.

Adv. Devvrat Singh (through V.C) for the Respondents.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &

FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

DATE: AUGUST 11, 2025 P. C.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. The present writ petition inter-alia challenges the notice dated 15.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the “Act”) for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

3. Among several jurisdictional grounds challenging the re-opening of assessment for the relevant Assessment Year in the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner has inter-alia contended [in Ground B of this petition] that the order passed under section 148A(d) is bad in law because Respondent No.1 has not obtained appropriate prior approval/sanction mandated under section 151 and has sought relief in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Writ Petition which reads as under:

"(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the Petitioners case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the notice dated 19.05.2021 issued u/s 148 [now treated as a notice u/s 148A(b) by the Respondents] (Exhibit B). issue letter dated 23.05.2022 (Exhibit C), order dated 13.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d) (Exhibit E-1) and the notice dated 15.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act (Exhibit F)"

4. Initially, Respondent No.1 had issued notice under section 148 (under the erstwhile law of re-assessment) on 19.05.2021 [placed at Exhibit B of the Petition] for Assessment Year 2016-17. Subsequently, in consequence of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC), the communication dated 23.05.2022 [placed at Exhibit C of the Petition], was sent to the Petitioner intimating that the aforesaid notice issued under Section 148 of the Act (under old regime) would be treated as a show-cause notice issued in terms of Section 148A(b) of the Act (under new regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021). It is claimed by the Petitioner that when the said notice was issued, he was travelling and was unaware about the issuance thereof. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 passed an order under section 148A(d) on 13.07.2022 [placed at Exhibit E1 of the Petition] along with the notice dated 15.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act (Exhibit F of the Petition]. Undisputedly, the above referred order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 were passed/issued in pursuance of the provisions of the substituted law of re-assessment as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 and which came into force from 01.04.2021.

5. The Petitioner has contended that in the present case, the order under section 148A(d) dated 13.07.2022 was passed beyond three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year 2016-17. Consequently, according to the provisions of section 151(ii), when more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority for obtaining the approval was either the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) or Principal Director General (PDGIT), or where there is no PCCIT or PDGIT, the Chief Commissioner (CCIT) or the Director General (DGIT). However, in paragraph 7 of the order dated 13.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d), Respondent No.1 has stated that before passing the said order, prior approval of Respondent No.2 i.e. the Principal Commissioner