SIRVINDER SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 43(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3060/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 September 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid because the approval for the proceedings was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the reopening proceedings were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the validity of the reopening of assessment for AY 2018-19. The reopening was initiated based on a Section 148A notice, followed by an order and a Section 148 notice.

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the approval for reopening of assessment was validly obtained as per Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the hierarchy of approving authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 151(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

PER SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080087049(1), dated 28.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

ITA 3060/DEL/2026 SIRVINDER SINGH 2. We now advert to the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself as per the assessee’s substantive grounds raised in the instant appeal. Learned counsel at the outset, invites our attention to the assessee’s paperbook running into 14 pages inter alia placing on record the assessing authority’s section 148A(b) notice dated 24.03.2022 followed by his twin replies thereto dated 31.03.2022 and 07.04.2022, the former’s section 148A(d) order dated 08.04.2022 finally culminating in his section 148 notice issue dated 09.04.2022, respectively. The assessee’s case accordingly is that the impugned reopening is a non-est one in the eyes of law once the learned PCIT, Delhi- 15 and not the PCCIT, as the case may be, had granted his prior approval to section 148A(b) proceedings initiated on 24.03.2022. Mr. Lalchandani further quotes section 151(ii) of the Act that such an invalid approval vitiates the impugned reopening itself as is the case herein.

3.

The Revenue on the other hand, submits that the learned PCIT herein has rightly granted approval to the authorities’ section 148(b) proceedings since initiated within a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year A.Y. 2018-19.

4.

That being the case, we hereby notice that hon’ble Bombay high court in Vodafone Idea Limited vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in Writ Petition no. 2766 of 2022 (A.Y.: 2018-19) decided on 06.02.2024 has settled the very issue in the assessee’s favour and against the department that such proceedings ought to be initiated only after obtaining the PCCIT’s approval and not the PCIT’s approval; as under:

ITA 3060/DEL/2026 SIRVINDER SINGH

ITA 3060/DEL/2026 SIRVINDER SINGH

5.

We adopt the above detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to conclude that the impugned reopening has not been validly initiated in the assessee’s case for want of a proper approval u/s 151(ii) of the Act. The same stands quashed in very terms therefore.

All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.09.2026 . Sd/- Sd/- SANJAY AWASTHI SATBEER SINGH GODARA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER New Delhi Dated: 23.09.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS/- Copy to: SIRVINDER SINGH, A-250, VIKAS PURI DELHI, 1 NEW DELHI-110018, DELHI 2 ITO WARD 43(1), NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →