JUS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMTED,NEW DELHI EXPRESSWAY GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), I.P.ESTATE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8803/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 August 2026AY 2016-174 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 notice under Section 148 was issued without the proper approval as required by Section 151 of the Act. The approval was obtained from an authority lower than what was mandated for the amount involved and the time elapsed.

What were the facts?

The assessee company was alleged to have taken an accommodation entry of Rs. 90,00,000/-. Reassessment proceedings were initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer made additions based on this and other transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated due to improper approval for the issuance of the Section 148 notice.

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 BENCH “A” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Ms. Chinu Bhasin, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Balkishan Gopal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.07.2026

ITA No.8803/Del/2025 JUS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8803/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 JUS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED, Vs. ACIT, Circle 13(1), C/o Shubham Goel, B-16, Golf Links Room No.316A, C.R. Building, Landcraft, Ghaziabad 201002 I.P. Estate, New Delhi, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi 110002. PAN No. AAJCM1328H Appellant Respondent Assessee by Ms. Chinu Bhasin, Adv. Revenue by Shri Balkishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 06.07.2026 Pronouncement on 07.08.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 03.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC, Delhi.

1.1 In this case, the assessee company was originally incorporated under the name and style of M/s Maple Magix Developers Pvt. Ltd. and later on assumed the present name. In this case, there was some information available with the Ld. AO that during the course of a search action on one Mr. Himanshu Verma, the assessee was supposed to have taken an alleged accommodation entry of Rs.90,00,000/- from one Pavaki Propbuild Pvt. Limited. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated under the old tax regime governing re-assessment, by issuing a 1

ITA No.8803/Del/2025 JUS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.06.2021. Thereafter, another notice was issued under the new regime on 07.07.2022 after obtaining approval from PCIT-4, Delhi (placed for perusal at pages 46 to 48 of the Paper Book). The Ld. AO proceeded ahead with the reassessment by making an addition of Rs.90,00,000/- with respect to M/s Pavaki Propbuild and another addition of Rs.54,00,685/- on account of security deposits from one M/s Savita Holdings Pvt. Limited.

1.2 The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where he could not succeed and his appeal was dismissed.

1.3 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with a number of grounds, including several additional grounds of appeal, which challenge the Ld. AO’s action on the ground that the assumption of jurisdiction was illegal.

2.

Before us the Ld. AR argued that the notice u/s 148 dated 07.07.2022 was issued with the prior approval of Pr. CIT-IV, Delhi which was violative of Section 151 r.w.s. 148, since approval in this case had been obtained from an authority mentioned in Section 151(i) of the Act instead of from an authority, being Pr. CCIT, mentioned in the Section 151(ii) of the Act. It was argued by the Ld. AR that after the case of Ashish Aggarwal reported in 444 ITR 1 (SC) and the case of Rajeev Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46 (SC) (2024), certain directives were given. For the sake of reference, the directive given in the case of Rajeev Bansal 2

ITA No.8803/Del/2025 JUS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED (supra) with regard to the essentiality of an appropriate Officer approving the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act deserves to be extracted: -

“76. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, non-compliance by the Assessing Officer with the strict time limits prescribed under section 151 affects their jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 148.” In this case, admittedly the income alleged to be escaping assessment was Rs.90,00,000/- which was more than Rs.50,00,000/- and hence the approval would need to be obtained from an Officer mentioned in 151(ii) of the Act and not an Officer mentioned in Section 151(i) of the Act. Thus, the approval had to be obtained from Pr. CCIT and not PCIT, as has been done in this case. In this regard, we may also refer to the cases of Vikram Kapahi reported in 170 taxmann.com 592 (Del.) [2025] and the case of Kusum Healthcare (P) Ltd. reported in 173 taxmann.com 58 (Del.) [2025] [in this case, para 5 is squarely on this issue]. Thus, since for AY 2016-17 the proceedings have been initiated beyond three years and involve more than Rs.50,00,000/-, hence, approval had to be obtained from Pr. CCIT. Since this has not been done, hence, the assumption of jurisdiction is illegal in this case. Since the assumption of jurisdiction is itself illegal the consequent assessment order deserves to be quashed.

ITA No.8803/Del/2025 JUS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07.08.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →