##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.7429/Mum/2025 (Assessment year: 2017-18)

Sanjay Shantilal Dave vs Assessment Unit Income Tax

4, 7^th Lane, Mangaldas Department Market, Marine Lines,

Mumbai-400002

PAN:AAAPD4936C APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri Rahul Sarda Respondent by : Shri Sanjeev Bhagat (SR. AR)

Date of hearing : 02/03/2026 Date of pronouncement : 24/03/2026

O R D E R

Per:Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

The instant appeal of theassessee 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 23.09.2025. The impugned orderemanated from the order of the Assessment Unit Income Tax Department (for brevity the “Ld. AO”) order passed under section 147

r.w.s. 144B of the Act date of order 18.05.2023.

2 ITA No.7429/Mum/2025 Sanjay Shantilal Dave

2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual capacity filed the return by declaring total income Rs.9,72,270/-. As per the information received by the Ld. AO the assessee has purchased an immovable property for consideration price whose value is less than the value adopted by the stamp duty authority. Accordingly, notice u/sec. 148 was issued on 28.06.2021 and after substitute of Finance Act 2021 and construed or treated to be a said notice u/sec. 148A in terms of section 148A(b) of the Act by considering the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs Ashish Agrawal (2022) 138 taxman.com 64 (SC). The reassessment was completed and the addition was confirmed u/sec. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act amount to Rs.37,18,572/- and unexplained investment u/sec. 69 of the Act amount of Rs.67,40,000/-. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions and rejected the appeal of the

assessee. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

3. The Ld. AR filed an Additional Ground related the validity of sanction granted u/sec. 151 of the Act for issuance notice u/sec. 148 of the Act. The assessee filed the paper book comprising of pages 1 to 192 which has been placed on record. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the notice u/sec. issued 148 dated 28.06.2021 placed at APB page 2 wherein the approval for issuance of the alleged notice u/sec 148 was accord by the Range 19(3) Mumbai. He further invited our attention in notice u/sec. 148A dated 29.07.2022 placed at APB page 4 to 5 wherein the approval for issuance the said notice was accorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-19 Mumbai (Pr. CIT-19, Mumbai). In the alleged

notice the Ld. AO noted

3 ITA No.7429/Mum/2025 Sanjay Shantilal Dave

“3. This notice is being issued after obtaining the prior approval of Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai accorded on Date 27.07.2022 vide reference no. Pr. CIT-19/148/2022-23.”

The Ld. AR contended that in the additional ground is related to challenging the validity of sanction of notice u/sec. 151 of the Act. As the sanction of the notice granted by the Pr. CIT 19 Mumbai beyond the prescribed period of three years from the end of relevant assessment year was contrary to law and, therefore,

vitiated the entire reassessment proceeding.

4. In furtherance of his submissions, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Alag Property Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) reported in 179 taxmann.com 578 (Bom)

and reproduced the relevant paragraphs 11 to 14 thereof as under:

“11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has drawn an illustration in para 78 of its order in the context of A.Y. 2017-18 (which is also the relevant Assessment year in the present Writ Petition) wherein it is categorically held that the authority specified under section 151(1) can accord sanction only up to 30.06.2021. This illustration makes it ab