6-WP-3371-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3371 OF 2026 Akshar Developers .. Petitioner Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4, Thane and Ors. .. Respondents Adv. Ritika Agarwal, with Adv. Yaminee Verma, i/b Acelegal, for the Petitioner. Adv. Ashok Kotangle, with Adv. Pranav Kulkarni, for the Respondent/Revenue. CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 P. C. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 29th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) ; the notice issued under Section 148 dated 29th July 2022; and the subsequent order disposing of the Petitioner's objections dated 17th February 2026. The Assessment Year in question is A.Y 2017-18. Page 1 of 7 SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 Darshan Patil 2026:BHC-AS:39130-DB 6-WP-3371-2026.doc 3. In the facts of the present case, the Petitioner has e-filed its Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 6th January 2017, declaring his total income as Nil. Initially, Respondent No.1 had issued a Notice under Section 148 [under the erstwhile law of reassessment] on 1st April 2021 i.e. three years after the end of A.Y.2017-18. Subsequently because of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC)] the Notice dated 1st April 2021 issued under the erstwhile Section 148 of the Act was to be treated as a show cause notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Consequently, Respondent No. 1 issued a fresh notice dated 1st June 2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act, setting out the reasons for reopening the assessment in terms of the amended reassessment regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. In response to the aforesaid notice, the Petitioner filed its detailed objections on 10th June 2022. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 passed an order dated 29th July 2022 under Section 148A(d) rejecting the objections raised by the Petitioner and issued a notice under Section 148, after obtaining approval from Respondent No. 4 [PCIT]. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order and consequential notice, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. Page 2 of 7 SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 Darshan Patil 6-WP-3371-2026.doc 4. The principal ground on which the impugned notice is challenged is that the approval/sanction as contemplated under Section 151 of the Act was not granted by the correct specified authority. It is the contention of the Petitioner that in the present case, the sanction has been granted by Respondent No. 4 [PCIT] who is the authority mentioned in Section 151(i) of the Act. However, since the notice under Section 148 issued to the Petitioner is dated 29th July 2022, more than three years have elapsed from the end of A.Y 2017-18. In such a scenario, the authority competent to grant sanction was the authority mentioned in Section 151(ii), namely, the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Director General. It is on this basis that it is contended that the notice issued under Section 148 is invalid in law. 5. Ms. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has submitted that the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) dated 29th July 2022, and the consequential notice under Section 148 dated 29th July 2022 was passed beyond three years from the end of the relevant A.Y. 2017-18. In such circumstances, as per the provisions of Section 151(ii) i.e. 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 SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 Darshan Patil 6-WP-3371-2026.doc General (PDGIT), or where there is no PCCIT or PDGIT, the Chief Commissioner(CCIT), or the Director General (DGIT). She further submitted that in the present case the sanction/approval was obtained from Respondent No. 4 [PCIT] who is not a “specified authority” under Section 151(ii) of the Act. It was, therefore, submitted that the statutory requirement of obtaining sanction from the authority specified under Section 151(ii) had not been complied with, and consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act are invalid in law. 6. In support of this contention the learned advocate for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) [2024] 301 Taxman 238 (SC) [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). She submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of approval of the specified authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act, in paragraph 78, has observed that for A.Y. 2017-18, the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction only till 30th June 2021. Any sanction to reassessment proceedings after 30th June 2021 will have to be granted by specified authority prescribed under Section 151(ii) of the Act. Page 4 of 7 SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 Darshan Patil 6-WP-3371-2026.doc 7. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue did not dispute the above factual position and fairly stated that appropriate orders be passed. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the papers and proceedings to the above Writ Petition. In the facts of the present case, Respondent No.4 has granted the sanction for issuance of the Notice under Section 148 of the Act on 28th July 2022. Since the Notice under Section 148 issued to the Petitioner is dated 29th July 2022 a period of more than 3 years have elapsed from the end of A.Y.2017-18. In such a scenario the authority competent to grant a sanction was the authority mentioned in Section 151(ii) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, Section 151, as amended by Finance Act, 2021, is reproduced below: “Sanction for issue of notice. 151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be, (i)  Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal   Chief   Commissioner   or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal   Chief   Commissioner   or   Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General,  if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year” (emphasis supplied) SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 Darshan Patil 6-WP-3371-2026.doc 9. On perusal of the order dated 29th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, we find that the aforesaid order was passed after taking approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No.4). Since the aforesaid order was passed, as well as the notice under Section 148 was issued, after the expiry of three years from the end of A.Y. 2017-18, as per the amended provisions of reassessment, the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the Act was required to grant approval/sanction. Accordingly, we conclude that in the present case, the approval has been obtained from the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime instead of the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the new regime. Since the sanction has been obtained from the incorrect authority, the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 are unsustainable and would have to be quashed and set aside. 10. We are supported in our view by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rajeev Bansal (supra), has in paragraph 78, clearly held that for A.Y. 2017-18 (which is also the relevant Assessment year in the present Writ Petition) the authority specified under Section 151(i) can grant sanction only upto 30th June 2021. Paragraph 78 of Rajeev Bansal (supra) reads thus:- SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 Darshan Patil 6-WP-3371-2026.doc “78. For example, the three-year time limit for   the   assessment   year   2017-2018   falls   for completion on March 31, 2021. It falls during the time period of March 20, 2020 and March 31, 2021,   contemplated   under section   3(1) of   the Taxation   and   other Laws   (Relaxation   and Amendment   of   Certain   Provisions)   Act,   2020. Resultantly, the authority specified under section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till June 30, 2021.” 11. In view of the above discussion we set aside the order dated 29th July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, the consequential notice issued under Section 148 dated 29th July 2022, and the order disposing of the Petitioner’s objections dated 17th February 2026 and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom. 12. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 13. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 Darshan Patil Signed by: Darshan Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/09/2026 17:59:26