NARENDRA AMRUTLAL KAKKAD,RAJKOT vs. ITO WD 1(1)(1), RKT, RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 69/RJT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 September 2026AY 2019-205 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law and without jurisdiction because the approval under Section 151 was not properly obtained, being undated, unsigned, and lacking a DIN number. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to AY 2019-20, challenging reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147. The core issue is the validity of the approval obtained under Section 151 for issuing the notice under Section 148.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated, specifically concerning the validity of the approval granted under Section 151 for the issuance of a notice under Section 148.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 151,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. AR
Hearing: 16/06/2026Pronounced: 07/09/2026

आदेश/ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’], dated 04.11.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) u/s. 147 of the Act, on 13.03.2024.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in sustaining action of ITO, Ward 1, Morbi, in issuing notice u/s 148 and passing of order u/s 147 of the Act by failing to appreciate that the same are bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in confirming action of the ITO Ward 1, Morbi in making addition of Rs. 16,50,000/- by way of unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act and thereby levying tax at rates specified u/s 115BBE of the Act. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in not adjudicating appellant's ground relating to not providing of cross-examination of persons by the A.O. to the Appellant. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal 3. When this appeal was called out for hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee invited my attention to the order dt. 03.09.2025, passed by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Aditya Plastic in ITA No. 185/Rjt/2024 for AY 2013-14, and argued that approval u/s 151 of the Act granted by the PCIT -1, Rajkot is undated and not digitally signed and no. DIN mentioned on the same. Section 292BA inserted by Act no. 4 of 2026, w.e.f. 01-10-2019 is applicable only for assessment made under any provisions of this Act and hence it does not apply to approval u/s 151 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that approval under section 151 of the Act, is neither signed manually nor signed digitally, therefore, reassessment order should be quashed. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, in the case of M/s. Aditya Plastic (supra), a copy of which was also placed before the Bench.

4.

Learned Departmental Representative did not have much to say but he nevertheless relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

5.

I see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Aditya Plastic(supra),vide order dated 03.09.2025. In this order, the Tribunal has inter alia observed as follows:

“8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record. We note that the approval of the PCIT is without any signature of the Ld.PCIT and without generating any DIN number which is reproduced below:

8.1. Therefore, the Ld.Cousel for the assessee has stated that the approval u/s.151 of the Act dated 30/03/2020 is not signed by the Ld.PCIT and, hence, it is not considered as a valid approval/satisfaction and, thus, the notice u/s.148 of the Act issued on the basis of said approval is bad in law and without jurisdiction. For that, reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Vikas Gupta reported at (2022) 142 taxmann.com 253 (Allahabad HC). The relevant part of judgement is reproduced:

13.

Thus, as per provision of section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an assessing officer gets jurisdiction to issue notice to an assessee under section 148 of the Act, 1961 after Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Income-tax is satisfied on the reason recorded by the assessing officer that it is a fit case for issuing such notice. The date and time of the approval granted digitally under section 151 of the Act and the date and time of the notice under section 148 of the Act, shows that the satisfaction was recorded by the PCTT digitally after the notice under section 148 was digitally signed. 29. In the present set of facts there was no valid satisfaction recorded by the by the Prescribed Authority under section 151 of the Act, 1961 when the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee under section 148 of the Act, 1961. At the time when the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner there was no valid satisfaction recorded by the Prescribed Authority ie. the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Subsequent to issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, the satisfaction under section 151 was digitally signed by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, the point of time when the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 148, he was having no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act, 1961. Consequently the impugned notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act, 1961 were without jurisdiction. The questions no. (a) and (b) are answered accordingly. 8.2. Therefore, based on these facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order framed by the AO needs to be quashed as there was no approval u/s.151 of the Act for initiating the re-assessment proceedings by the Ld.PCIT, therefore, on this count the assessment order framed by the AO should be quashed.”

6.

Since, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT, Rajkot Bench, in case of M/s Aditya Plastic in ITA No. 185/Rjt/2024 for AY 2013-14, and there is no change in facts and law and the Revenue is unable to produce any material to controvert the aforesaid findings of the Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot (supra). Respectfully following the binding judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot (supra), I, quash the reassessment proceedings. As the reassessment itself is quashed, all other issues on merits of the additions, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic and infructuous.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above.

Order was pronounced in the open Court on 07/09/2026.

Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] लेखा सद�/Accountant Member //True Copy// राजकोट /Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 07/09/2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order

Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 5 of 5

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →