DCIT-42(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SEEMA SATYADEO MALIK, MUMBAI

The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner challenged the validity of the notice dated 26.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act and the assessment order dated 27.09.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, inter alia, on the grounds that the alleged escaped income was below Rs.50 lakh, the notice was issued beyond three years and the sanction was obtained from the Ld. PCIT instead of the competent authority prescribed u/s 151(ii) of the Act.

The Ld. Commissioner, by following Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income Tax Officer & Ors. [(2023) 334 CTR 646 (Telangana); (2023) 295 Taxman 652 (Telangana)], quashed the reassessment proceedings.

Thus, the Revenue being aggrieved has preferred the instant appeal. Though, notice of hearing is duly issued, the Assessee neither appears nor files any application seeking adjournment. Thus, we are constrained to decide the appeal ex parte qua the Assessee.

We have heard the Ld. DR, perused the material available on record and considered the submissions. Admittedly, the alleged escaped income was only Rs.2 lakh and the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the notice is barred u/s 149 of the Act.

Further, the sanction was obtained from the Ld. PCIT and not from the competent authority prescribed u/s 151(ii) of the Act. Thus, the notice is also vitiated for want of valid sanction.

Though the issue relating to the Faceless Assessing Officer may require reconsideration in view of subsequent developments, however, the notice dated 26.07.2022 is independently unsustainable on account of limitation and invalid sanction.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, we find no reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Ld. Commissioner. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.