SUMAN MITTAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 1, HISSAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued in violation of Section 151 as the approval 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) for reopening beyond three years. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was filed 200 days late, which the tribunal condoned. The core issue was the validity of the reassessment notice issued under Section 148.
What were the issues?
Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by a notice under Section 148 are valid when the approval for issuing the notice was obtained from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT/CCIT, for reopening beyond three years.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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 Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 10.07.2025, for Assessment Year 2016-17.
The appeal is time barred by 200 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 200 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.
The assessee has filed an application for admissions of additional ground of appeal challenging validity of notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The additional ground raised by the assessee is as under:-
ITA 4295/DEL/2026 SUMAN MITTAL “Because the action for initiation, of reassessment proceedings u/s 148 is being challenged since notice u/s 148 was issued after lapse of 3 years and therefore, within the meanings of Section 151(ii) of the Act specified authority to approve issuance of notice u/s 148 was Pr. CCIT whereas the approval has been given Pr.CIT-15, Rohtak.” Since, the additional ground of appeal raised a jurisdictional/legal issue that goes to the root of validity of assessment order, no additional evidence is required to be adduce for adjudication of this jurisdictional issue, therefore, the additional ground raised is admitted for adjudication.
Shri Gurjeet Singh, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that in the instant appeal the assessment has been reopened beyond the period of three years, therefore, necessary approval u/s.151 of the Act for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act has to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, whereas, in the present case the Assessing Officer (AO) has taken approval from PCIT. This fact clearly emanates from the order passed u/s. 148A(d) of the Act (at pages 4 to 6 of the paper book (of the Act as well as from the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act (at page 1 of the paper book).
Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the Department strongly supported the impugned order on merits.
Both sides heard, notices issued u/s.148, 148A(b) and order passed u/s.148A(d) of the Act placed in the paper book examined. The assessee has challenged validity of notice issued u/s.148 and u/s.148A(b) of the Act. As per provisions of section 151 of the Act (as were applicable when the aforesaid notices were issued), before issuing notices u/s.148 and u/s.148A of the Act, the AO was required to obtain necessary approval from PCCIT/CCIT, if, more than three years have elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year. In the instant case, assessment for AY 2016-17 was reopened by way of issuance of notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act dated 26.05.2022, which is clearly beyond period of three years. Therefore, the AO ought to have taken approval from PCCIT/CCIT. A perusal of order u/s.148A(d) of the Act dated 29.07.2022 as well as notice issued u/s.148 of the Act clearly shows that the statutory notice has been issued after obtaining prior approval of PCIT. This clearly shows that the notice has been issued in violation of provision of section 151 of the Act and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indian rendered in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, 138 taxmaan.com 64. Since, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is without jurisdiction, the assessment proceedings emanating from such invalid notice are void-ab-initio, hence, quashed.
ITA 4295/DEL/2026 SUMAN MITTAL 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 22nd day of June, 2026.
Sd/- VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 31-August-2026
ITA 4295/DEL/2026 SUMAN MITTAL Copy to:
SUMAN MITTAL, C-74, SANGAM APPARTMENT, SECTOR-9, 1 ROHINI, DELHI-110085, ITO WARD 1, 2 HISSAR, HISAR-125001, HARYANA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026