RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 563/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 July 2026AY 2017-1812 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 since the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond 3 years from the end of the assessment year, the approval should have been obtained from a higher authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. As the approval was not obtained from the competent authority, the notice is invalid, and the reassessment proceedings are vitiated.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns Assessment Year 2017-18. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 26.07.2022, which is more than 3 years after the end of the relevant assessment year. The approval for this notice was obtained from the Principal CIT-1, Raipur.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice under Section 148 was issued with valid approval from the competent authority, considering it was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year.

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, RAIPUR BENCH, “DB” RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 31.07.2026Pronounced: 31.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 30.04.2026 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

The contention in law as assailed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the present case pertains to A.Y.2017-18 and notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) had been issued on 26.07.2022 which is after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The said notice is extracted as follows:

3 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.563/RPR/2026

4 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.563/RPR/2026

3.

That further it was contended by the Ld. Counsel for the assesse that the aforesaid notice has been issued after obtaining approval from Pr. CIT-1, Raipur, whereas, the appropriate authority in terms with Section 151(ii) of the Act should have been Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or the Director General

5 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.563/RPR/2026

of Income Tax. That since the notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued without valid approval, therefore, the said notice is void ab initio and such void ab initio notice cannot give rise to valid reassessment order and hence, reassessment framed by the A.O is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

4.

Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR relied heavily on the findings of the sub- ordinate authorities.

5.

We find that the aforesaid issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee against the Revenue by the decision of the ITAT, DB, Raipur in the case of Kamlesh Kukreja Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G), ITA No.119/RPR/2025, dated 01.01.2026 wherein it was held and observed as follows:

“17. Similarly, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 shows that the same has been issued after obtaining the prior approval of the PCIT. The relevant notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, copy of which is placed at pages 8 and 9 of the paper book reads as under:

6 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.563/RPR/2026

7 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.563/RPR/2026

18.

Since the assessment year involved in the instant case is assessment year 2016-17 and the notice has been issued on 29.07.2022, therefore, the competent authority who should have given the approval as per provisions of section 151 is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or the Director General of Income Tax. However, in the instant case the approval has been given by the PCIT.

19.

We find the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ramesh Bachulal Mehta vs. ITO (supra), has held that where reassessment proceedings for assessment year 2016-17 were initiated after expiry of three years from end of relevant year, approval under section 151(ii) was mandatorily required from higher authority i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner, and sanction by Principal Commissioner was not valid. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under:

8 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.563/RPR/2026

9 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.563/RPR/2026

10 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.563/RPR/2026

20.

Similarly, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Core Logistic Company vs. ACIT (supra) has held that where the assessee's case was reopened under section 148 and approval had been obtained in terms of section 151(i) from Principal Commissioner, since amount involved was more than Rs.50 lakhs, approval had to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner as per section 151(ii) and, thus, initiation of proceedings itself was without any jurisdiction. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under:

11 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.563/RPR/2026

21.

Since in the instant case notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued on 29.07.2022 which is beyond the period of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. assessment year 2016-17, therefore, the competent authority who should have given the approval as per provisions of section 151 is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or the Director General of Income Tax. However, in the instant case the same has been approved by the PCIT-1, Raipur. Therefore, such approval being not in accordance with law is invalid and consequently the entire re-assessment proceedings are vitiated. We, therefore, quash the re-assessment proceedings. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the grounds raised on merit by the assessee are not adjudicated being academic in nature.

22.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.”

6.

Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, on the same parity of reasoning, it is held that since in the present case, notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued on 26.07.2022 which is beyond 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. A.Y.2017-18, therefore, competent authority who should have given approval as per Section 151(ii) of the Act is Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or the Director General of Income Tax. However, in the present case, the same has been approved by the Pr. CIT-1, Raipur, therefore, such approval is not in accordance with law, hence invalid, bad in law, consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings are vitiated. We, therefore, quash the reassessment proceedings. Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the grounds raised on merits are left un- adjudicated being academic in nature.

12 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.563/RPR/2026

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 31st July, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2. ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. Samiran आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Bera, Sr. PS, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Raipur आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. Digitally signed by Samiran Bera, Sr. PS, ITAT, Raipur Date: 2026.07.31 13:54:21 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →