The Bombay High Court has set aside reassessment proceedings initiated against Skypak Travels Private Limited for Assessment Year 2018–19, holding that approval granted by an incompetent authority vitiates the entire exercise of jurisdiction under the Income-tax Act, 1961. 

The Bench of Justices B. P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 and the order passed under Section 148A(d) were without jurisdiction, as the mandatory sanction under Section 151 had been granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the competent authority prescribed under law. 

The petitioner had challenged multiple actions of the Income Tax Department, including the notice under Section 148A(b), order under Section 148A(d), notice under Section 148, and consequential assessment and penalty orders. The challenge was primarily on jurisdictional grounds, contending that the approval for reopening the assessment—issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year—was granted by an authority not empowered under Section 151(ii) of the Act. 

The Court noted that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) dated April 6, 2022, and the notice under Section 148 dated April 7, 2022, were clearly issued beyond the statutory period of three years from the end of Assessment Year 2018–19. In such cases, the law mandates that approval must be obtained from a higher authority, namely the Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent, and not the Principal Commissioner. 

Buy Now: Income Tax Monthly E-Compilation : March 2026

Rejecting the Revenue’s contention, the Court held that sanction by an incorrect authority is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect that strikes at the root of the matter. It reiterated that Section 151 is a critical safeguard designed to prevent arbitrary reopening of assessments and must be strictly complied with. 

The Bench relied on earlier precedents, including Vodafone Idea Limited v. DCIT and KPMG LLP v. ACIT, where similar reassessment actions were quashed on identical grounds. It also referred to the ruling of the Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, emphasizing that prior sanction by the correct authority is a sine qua non for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148. 

On the issue of retrospective application, the Court clarified that the proviso to Section 151—inserted with effect from April 1, 2023—cannot be applied retrospectively to validate actions taken in April 2022. The legislature having expressly made the provision prospective, it cannot be invoked to cure a jurisdictional defect in earlier proceedings. 

The Court also took note of the petitioner’s contention that none of the notices were properly served, with records indicating that communications were sent to an incorrect address and returned unserved. While the Court did not delve deeply into this aspect, it observed that the lack of service further strengthened the petitioner’s case of violation of natural justice. 

The High Court rejected the Revenue’s objection regarding the availability of an alternate remedy, holding that when proceedings are initiated without jurisdiction, the writ court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 

The Court quashed the order under Section 148A(d), notice under Section 148, assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144, demand notice, and penalty orders under Sections 270A and 272A(1)(d), declaring them unsustainable in law. 

Case Details

Case Title: Skypak Travels Private Limited  Versus ITO

Citation: JURISHOUR-1000-HC-2026(BOM) 

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 5456 Of 2024

Date: 24/04/2026

Counsel For  Petitioner: Adv. Dharan Gandhi

Counsel For Respondent: Adv. Abhishek R. Mishra

Read More: Income of Foreign Company Can’t Be Taxed in Hands of Shareholders: Delhi High Court