Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals. For AY 2016-17, the assessee contended that they were not duly served notice during the CIT(A) proceedings. For AY 2017-18, the assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated via a Section 148 notice issued after three years, arguing that the prior approval under Section 151 was invalid as it was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, an authority not competent under the new regime.
Held
For AY 2016-17, the tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication after ensuring proper service of notice. For AY 2017-18, the tribunal allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned assessment, finding that the approval for reassessment was not granted by the legally competent authority as per the new regime.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was duly served notice for AY 2016-17, and whether the reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 were validly initiated with proper approval under Section 151 by the competent authority as per the new regime.
Sections Cited
151, 148, 148A, 148A(a), 148A(b), 148A(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITAs No.1899 & 1900/Del/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/s Essel Housing Projects Private Vs DCIT, Ltd., Circle-20, LGF-10, Vasant Square Mall, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, Delhi – 110 070. PAN: AAACE6693G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Aman Garg, CA Revenue by : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the orders dated 27.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi.
At the time of hearing, in regard to the appeal for AY 2016-17, the ld. AR has pointed out that the assessee was not duly served. The ld. DR has defended the order of the CIT(A) submitting that notices on various dates were issued. However, after going through the impugned order, we find that although the fact of issuance of notices is mentioned, the manner of issuance of notices
ITAs No.1899 & 1900/Del/2025 and an opinion on due service to the knowledge of the assessee is not recorded. Thus, it will be appropriate to give the assessee an opportunity to contest on merits. Thus, in regard to for AY 2016-17, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside with the direction to decide the issue afresh, after giving due notice of hearing to the assessee, as per law.
AY 2017-18, the ld. AR has submitted that there was no valid approval for the purpose of section 151 of the Act and appreciating the contention of the ld. AR, we find that in the present case, order u/s 148A(d) has been passed and, thereafter, notice u/s 148 has been issued. The order u/s 148A(d) has been passed and notice issued on 27.07.2022, i.e., after three years from the end of AY 2017-18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 (10) TMI 264, order dated 03.10.2024, has held in para 81 as follows:-
“81. This Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) directed the assessing officers to “pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assesses concerned.” Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime “after following the procedure as required under Section 148-A.” Although this Court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under Section 148A(a) and Section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for Section 148A(d) and Section 148. Therefore, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable.
ITAs No.1899 & 1900/Del/2025
Thus, prior approval of Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General and where these two authorities are not there, then, the Chief Commissioner or Director General are competent authorities to grant the approval. However, in the case in hand, such approval of these competent authorities have not been taken and the copy of notice on record shows that the approval has been accorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, New Delhi on 27.07.2022 which seems to have been as per the old regime. Thus, we are inclined to sustain the ground no.4 in impugned order for in AY 2017-18. The appeal of the assessee in