HAR PRASAD GOYAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 44(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2193/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 July 2026AY 2016-172 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 approval for reassessment was granted by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT, which was required for notices issued beyond three years. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was invalid and the assumption of jurisdiction was bad in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The approval for reassessment under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, specifically concerning the proper authority for granting approval under Section 148 for notices issued beyond the three-year period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Hearing: 16/07/2026Pronounced: 27/07/2026

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2193/Del/2026 (A.Y 2016-17) Har Prasad Goyal Vs. Income Tax Officer, M-5, Mahavir Bhawan, Ward 44(1), Civic Centre, Karampura Commercial Minto Road, New Delhi Complex, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ADLPG3571G Assessee by : Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/07/2026 Date of pronouncement 27/07/2026 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, J. M.: The instant appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the

order dated 29.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-

tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter

referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC] under Section 250 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the

Assessment Order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Assessment Unit,

Income-tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under

Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'

for shot) for Assessment Year 2016-17.

2 ITA No. 2193/Del/2026 Har Parsad Goyal

Having regard to the fact of the approval under Section 148 2.

of the Act dated 28.05.2021 appearing at page 1 of PB which was

issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant to A.Y,

since without approval by the PCCIT but only from the PCIT, the

ratio laid down in the case of Union of India vs. Rajiv Bansal

reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (S.C)is found to be squarely covered.

The notice under Section 148 notice itself found to be invalid and

assumption of jurisdiction, therefore, bad in law and the

reassessment is quashed.

3.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27 /07/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27/07/2026 R. Naheed, Sr PS Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 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 →