AJAY KUMAR,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ITA No. 3324/Del/2026 (A.Y 2017-18) Ajay Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No. 603/9, Panipat, Ward-1, Aayakar Haryana 132103 Bhawan, Panipat, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ALTPK0061F

Assessee by : Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv (VC) & Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv Revenue by: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 14/05/2026 Date of pronouncement 15/07/2026 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, J. M.: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against

the order dated 20/02/2026 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 14/04/2023

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 for Assessment Year

2017-18.

2 ITA No. 3324/Del/2026 Ajay Kumar Vs. ITO 2. The matter relates to cash deposit during demonization

period.

Representative pressed the Ground No. 2 on the issue that the

initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act dated

30/07/2022 for A.Y 2017-18, admittedly after three years from

the end of the relevant assessment year was done upon

obtaining approval from the Ld. PCIT being an authority under

the provision of Section 151(1) of the Act and not the

appropriate authorities under Section 151 (ii) of the Act, and,

therefore, such initiation is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

issued under Section 148 of the Act appearing at Page 36 and

37 of the paper book, paragraph 3 of Page 37 whereof clearly

speaks ofprior approval been obtained for issuance of

noticeunder Section 148 of the Act from the Ld. PCIT, Rohtak

on 29/07/2022. He has further relied upon the order under

Section 148A(d) of the Act particularly appearing at Page 40

wherein Paragraph 7 again clearly speaks of prior approval

having been granted by the specified authority being PCIT,

3 ITA No. 3324/Del/2026 Ajay Kumar Vs. ITO Rohtak. Such contention made by the Ld. AR on this issue has

not been able to be controverted by the Ld. DR.

have further considered the judgment relied upon by the Ld. AR

in the case of H & M Hennes and Mauritz Retail (P.) Ltd. Vs.

ACIT [2025] 174 taxm,ann.com 1113 (Delhi) wherein the order

was passed under Section 148A(d) and notice of reopening of

assessment was issued upon approval obtained from the PCIT

and not from the PCCIT or any other authorities specified under

Section 151 (ii) of the Act which was mandatory having regard

to the issuance of notice under Section 148A of the Act as was

made beyond the period of three years from the end of relevant

assessment year and, therefore finally the impugned notice was

set aside.

of the Act and furtherthe order passed under Section 148A (d)

of the Act, appears to have been made without obtaining

approval from the PCCIT or any other specified authorities

under Section 151 (ii) of the Act and only from the PCIT, Rohtak

under Section 151 (i) of the Act, particularlywhen the reopening

4 ITA No. 3324/Del/2026 Ajay Kumar Vs. ITO has made beyond the period of three years from the end of the

relevant assessment year, respectfully relying upon the order

passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of

H & M Hennes and Mauritz Retail (P.) Ltd. (supra), the

issuance of order under Section 148A of the Act and further

order under Section 148A(b) are found to be bad in law and,

therefore, not sustainable and thus, quashed.

above, rest of the grounds raised by the assessee are become

academic; no order needs to be passed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15/07/2026.

Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 15/07/2026 R. Naheed, Sr PS Copy forwarded to

5 ITA No. 3324/Del/2026 Ajay Kumar Vs. ITO