ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO WARD (5) (1) (1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4041/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 September 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT). Since the reopening was beyond three years, the PCCIT was the specified sanctioning authority, making the proceedings vitiated.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged reassessment proceedings initiated for AY 2016-17. The primary issue was whether the approval for reopening under Section 151 was obtained from the correct authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings are valid when the approval under Section 151 was granted by an incorrect authority. Whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings satisfied the statutory preconditions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151,Section 148,Section 147,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, CIT DR
Hearing: 10.08.2026Pronounced: 09.09.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4041/DEL/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Anil Kumar Aggarwal, vs. ITO, Ward 5(1)(1), B-85, Sector 71, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida. Noida- 201 301 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AAAPA1281D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri K. Hauthang, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 10.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09.09.2026 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 17.02.2026 for the Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

At the outset of the hearing, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has filed additional grounds of appeal and it is purely legal issue and the same is reproduced below :-

2 ITA No.4041/Del/2026 “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the approval accorded under section 151 of the Act is by wrong authority, mechanical and arbitrary, without there being any application of mind. Further, even the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 148 read with section 149 of the Act are without satisfying the statutory preconditions of the Act are without satisfying the statutory preconditions of the Act and as such, the assessment so framed is null and void and deserves to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment so framed is illegal and without jurisdiction, as the instant proceedings have been initiated and finalized by jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) instated of faceless assessing officer (FAO).?

3.

Since the above grounds of appeal are purely legal, do not require fresh facts to be investigated and go to the root of the matter, ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the same may be admitted in view of the judgement of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR 0383 (SC).

4.

On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue has no objection of admitting the additional ground of appeal being purely legal issue.

5.

In view of the reliance made by the ld. AR for the assessee on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. (supra) and issue being purely legal, we proceeded to admit the additional ground of appeal being a legal issue.

6.

At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee specifically argued additional ground no.1 and submitted that the instant case is covered on the jurisdictional aspect i.e., no notice under section 148 of the Income-

3 ITA No.4041/Del/2026 tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) can be issued for AY 2016-17 without prior approval of the specified authority under the new regime in view of the judgement rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693. He submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction of the AO under section 147 of the Act could not be construed as valid when the approval under section 151 of the Act has been obtained from Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT, Delhi - 10, New Delhi) instead of Learned Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT ). In this regard, he relied on various decisions of Hon’ble High Court and the Tribunal and specifically relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kids Dream International Private Limited vs ACIT in WP(C ) 2814/2023 dated 24.02.2025. Accordingly, he prayed that the reassessment proceedings may be quashed and the appeal be allowed.

7.

On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied on the findings of the lower authorities.

8.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the additional ground raised by the assessee is as to whether the assumption of jurisdiction of the AO under section 147 of the Act could be construed as valid when the approval under section 151

4 ITA No.4041/Del/2026 of the Act has been obtained from Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT, Delhi - 10, New Delhi) instead of Learned Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT ) .

9.

We observed that the issue involved is reopening of assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17. For this purpose, the AO obtained approval under section 151 of the Act from the Learned PCIT which fact is quite evident from the order passed under section 148 of the Act dated 22.07.2022. Since the reopening in the instant case has been made beyond 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified sanctioning authority for the purposes of section 148 of the Act is Learned PCCIT. Since the approval in the instant case has been obtained from a wrong authority, the entire reassessment proceedings get vitiated. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the Learned AR before us on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Kids Dream International Private Limited vs ACIT in W P (C ) 2814/2023 dated 24.02.2025 . The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced below:-

“2. As is evident from the above, the solitary question which was canvassed for our consideration was the issue of sanction as contemplated under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]. 3. The reassessment action for Assessment Year [“AY”] 2017-18 came to be commenced immediately after a lapse of three years from the end of the relevant AY. It is in the aforesaid backdrop

5 ITA No.4041/Del/2026 that Mr. Kantoor, learned counsel, had submitted that the said sanction accorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [“PCIT”] would not sustain. 4. We note that while dealing with the said question, we had in Abhinav Jindal H.U.F. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors [2024 SCC OnLine Del 6585] duly enunciated the legal position which would obtain. We had ultimately in Abhinav Jindal held that the Taxation & Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [“TOLA”] provisions would have no bearing on the identification of the competent authority under section 151 for according sanction. 5. In view of the aforesaid, and since undisputedly the facts of the present case the sanction was accorded only by the PCIT, the reassessment action would not sustain. 6. Accordingly and for all the aforesaid reasons, we allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned order referable to section 148A(d) dated 30 July 2022 and notice under section 148 of even date.” 4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, the reassessment proceedings are hereby quashed and additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

5.

Since the entire reassessment is quashed, the other grounds raised by the assessee both on law as well on facts need not be gone into and they are kept open.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of September, 2026.

Sd/- sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 09.09.2026 TS

6 ITA No.4041/Del/2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals). 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →