IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Premlata Bisht Bhandari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-1202, Bay Bliss, Ward-2, Panvel Sector-9, Ulwe, Navi Mumbai – 410206 Maharashtra PAN : BBZPB5039F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Dhaval Shah (Through Virtual Revenue by : Shri Eknath Abhang (Through Virtual)

Date of hearing : 04.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 20.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 10.09.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 31.05.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act.

2. Assessee has raised various ground on merit as well legal in the revised grounds of appeal. However, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2016-17 deserves to be quashed as proper approval u/s.151 of the Act has not been taken from the prescribed authority prior to issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. He submitted that for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act beyond three years from the end of the assessment year in the instant case ld. Assessing Officer was required to get approval u/s.151 of the Act from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, however, ld. Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 14.07.2022 with the approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune which is not in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the Act. In support, he placed reliance on various decisions mentioned in the case law paper book along with making specific reference to the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Santosh Jaynarayan Sharma Vs. ITO – ITA No.2324/PUN/2025 order dated 06.01.2026 and in the case of Siddharth Raikumar Nahar vs. DCIT – ITA No.2062/Pun/2025 order dated 29.10.2025.

3. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2016- 17. On account of information from the seized material found during the course of search in the case of Bhagvati Developers, ld. Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. The assessment proceedings in question has been initiated by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 14.07.2022 in response to which the assessee filed the return on 08.08.2022 declaring income of Rs.98,740/-.

5. Now the validity of the said show cause notice u/s.148 of the Act is in challenge before me. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to the notice placed at pages 8 to 10 of the paper book stating that the said notice has been issued with the prior approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune. He has referred to the provisions of section 151 of the Act and has contended that for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act beyond three years from the date of relevant assessment, ld. Assessing Officer is required to take approval from the Principal Chief commissioner of Income Tax.

6. I find that under similar set of facts this Tribunal in the case of Santosh Jaynarayan Sharma Vs. ITO (supra) has dealt on the very same issue observing as follows :

“5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 filed on 17.03.2018 declaring income of ₹20,31,900. Ld. Assessing Officer based on the information about explained cash credit/investment amounting to ₹45,76,025 had reason to believe that income to this extent has escaped assessment and has issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 26.07.2022 after taking approval from the Principal Commissioner, Nashik. Now the issue raise