ALI MOHAMMAD,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued prior to the mandatory approval under Section 151. Therefore, the notice and the consequential assessment order were bad in law and liable to be quashed.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, digitally signed at 3:34 am on March 31, 2021. The approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 151 was digitally signed at 3:35 am on the same day. The assessee contended that the notice was issued without valid prior approval.
What were the issues?
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 is valid when the approval under Section 151 was obtained after the issuance of the notice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha363 citing1 SCC 453 · 1971
- Commr. of Agrl. IT v. Keshab Chandra Mandal3 citing18 ITR 569 · 1950 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI M BALAGANESH
PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC dated 14.11.2024 for the AY 2014-15. The assessee raised the following grounds:
“(1) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the validity of the action of the Ld. AO in reopening the case of the appellant u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 since the notice was issued without prior necessary approvals U/s 151 of I. Tax Act.
Hence the Assumption of Juri iction by Ld. AO is illegal & Assessment deserve to be quashed reliance
1 has been place on the Hon'ble Bombay H
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026