JOGINDER SINGH,VILLAGE BAJGHERA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), GURUGRAM

Appellant by : Shri K.L. Aneja, Adv. & Shri Neeraj Sharma, Adv. Respondent by : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 06.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 20.08.2025 ORDER The Assessee has filed this Appeal against the Order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 12.07.2025 relating to assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has originally raised as many as 08 grounds. However, he later filed and only argued the following revised grounds of appeal

, in lieu of original grounds. 1.1 That the AO has erred on facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 147 which could not be assumed by the AO as the approval u/s. 151 taken by the ITO, Ward 2(2), as noted in the assessment order dated 27.3.2022 passed by the AO was from Pr. CIT, which is not correct in law. 1.2 That approval taken u/s. 151, as noted in order u/s. 147/144 dated 27.3.2022 from Pr. CIT as against approval sought to be taken after lapse of 3 years from the relevant assessment year Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as per Section (ii) which has not been done and such the assessment 2022 passed by the AO bad in law in view of judicial decision from Bombay High Court in the case of Mrs. Chitra Superkar vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(1), Pune and others reported in 2023 149 Taxmann

26. (Bombay HC.).

, hence, the same is admitted and I proceed further.

3. I have heard rival contentions and perused the relevant records. It transpires from records i.e. page no. 8 of the Paper Book which is the copy of the approval u/s. 151 of the Act accorded by the PCIT, Faridabad dated 28.3.2021 conveyed to AO based on which notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2021 was issued by the AO for assessment year AY 2015-16 which is issued after 3 years from the end of relevant year i.e. on 31.03.2019 and therefore as per relevant provisions u/s. 151(ii) the sanctioning authority has to be PCCIT and not the PCIT. This view has been fortified by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Balkrishna Barsha Sutar vs. ITO, Ward 28(1)(1), Mumbai & Ors. Dated 29.4.2024 passed in WP No. 6192 of 2024 wherein the Court has observed as under:- “4. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 20th July, 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT-27, Mumbai. The matter pertains to assessment yeear (AY) 2017-18 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 20th July, 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under section 151(ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 of the Act has been inserted only with effect from 1st April, 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand.

5. In the circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the sanction is 2