VIJAY KUMAR MANCHANDA,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 59(8), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4520/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 September 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment beyond three years was not in accordance with Section 151 of the Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was without jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The assessment in this case was reopened beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year by issuing a notice under Section 148. The approval for reopening was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT).

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment beyond three years was validly approved as per Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, considering the requirement of approval from PCCIT/CCIT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre [in short “CIT(A)”], dated 28.02.2026, for assessment year 2016-17.

2.

Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessment in the present case has been reopened beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant AY 2016-17 vide issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 21.07.2022. A copy of the notice is at page 130 & 131 of the paper-book. A perusal of the said notice would show that the same has been

ITA 4520/DEL/2026 VIJAY KUMAR MANCHANDA

issued after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commission of Income Tax (In short “PCIT”). As per the provision of section 151 of the Act, where the assessment is reopened beyond the period of three years, prior approval should have been taken from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (in short “PCCIT”) or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (in short “CCIT”). The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported as [2024] 167 taxmann.com 17 (SC).

3.

Per contra, Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR, representing the department supported the impugned order and prayed for upholding the addition on merits.

4.

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. The assessee in the present appeal has confined his submissions on the legal ground challenging validity of reopening of assessment. As per the notice under section 148 of the Act available on record, the same was issued on 21.07.2022, which clearly shows that the same was issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. As per the provisions of section 151 of the Act, where the assessment is reopened after elapse of more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, prior approval from PCCIT or CCIT is mandatory. From reading of the notice under section 148, it emerges that the notice has been issued by the Assessing Officer after seeking prior approval of PCIT, Delhi -20, New Delhi. The approval sought for issuance of notice under section 148 in the present case is not as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act, as well as, the law explained in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra). Thus, the notice issued under section 148, dated 21.07.2022 is without jurisdiction. Any proceedings arising from defective notice are void ab-initio. Accordingly, the assessment order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd September, 2026 Sd/- VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 23-09-2026 RK/-

ITA 4520/DEL/2026 VIJAY KUMAR MANCHANDA

Copy to: VIJAY KUMAR MANCHANDA INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 59(8), DELHI 557A PROP VEEKAY INDUSTRIES, GT ROAD, OPP. UCO BANK, VIKAS BHAWAN, DELHI SHAHADARA, NEW DELHI-110032, NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI NEW DELHI-110032, DELHI

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →