##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.6769/Mum/2025

(Assessment year: 2017-18)

Jignesh Natverlal Patel vs ITO Ward-24(3)(1), Mumbai

(Represented By Late Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug,

Natverlal Nanubhai Patel) Mumbai-400012

401 Adarsh Building, RTO Four

Bunglows, Andheri (West),

Mumbai-400053

PAN:AAAPP1767B

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Aditya Ramchandran,

Respondent by : Shri Sushil B. Shende (Sr DR)

Date of hearing : 10/02/2026

Date of pronouncement : 05/03/2026

O R D E R

Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi

[for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A)], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act

1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2017-18, date of order

21.08.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the ld. Assessment

2

ITA No.6769/Mum/2025

Jignesh Natverlal Patel (Represented by Late Natverlal Nanubhai Patel)

Unit Income Tax Department (for brevity the‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section

147r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 23.05.2023.

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued by the learned

assessing officer under Section 148 on 24-7-2022 is invalid and bad in law in view of the fact

that it was issued after the expiry of the time period as extended by the provisions of Taxation

and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 after excluding the

period referred to in third proviso to Section 149 as explained by the Supreme Court in the case

of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). As a result, the said notice as well as

the entire assessment proceeding ought to have been declared as null and void.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred

in issuing the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 after obtaining the

approval of the approval of PCIT-20, Mumbai which was not the correct 'specified authority' as

per Section 151 who should have approved it when three years have already elapsed from the

end of the relevant assessment year.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITO, Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai has

erred in passing the order u/s. 148A(d) and also issuing the notice u/s. 148 without appreciating

that he was not having the jurisdiction for the same in view of Section 151A and the notification

issued thereunder notifying e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022 and,

thereby. rendering the said order and the notice as well as the entire assessment proceeding as

null and void.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred

in issuing a notice u/s 148 dated 24/07/2022 without complying with the requirements of

Circular No. 19 of 2019 dated 14th August, 2019 issued by the CBDT.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the

addition of the long-term capital gains amounting to Rs.3974967/-.“

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return u/sec.

139(1) of the Act. The notice u/sec. 148 of the Act was issued to assessee on

3

ITA No.6769/Mum/2025

Jignesh Natverlal Patel (Represented by Late Natverlal Nanubhai Patel)

30.06.2021 and after the substitute of Financial year 2021 and construed or

treated to be the said notice as 148A in terms of section 148A(b) of the Act by

considering the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs Ashish Agarwal,

[2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC). Finally the reassessment was completed with

addition of the long-term capital gains amounting to Rs.39,74,967/-. The

aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee challenged

both the legal and on merit before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) passed the order

and rejected the grounds of the assessee. Be