VINOD CHAUHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 30(5), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1587/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2026AY 2017-183 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 not issued in accordance with law. Specifically, the approval for issuing the notice was granted by an authority not competent to do so under Section 151(ii) for the relevant assessment year.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns assessment year 2017-18, arising from an assessment order passed under Section 147. The primary challenge is to the assumption of jurisdiction based on a notice issued under Section 148.

What were the issues?

The key issue was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 due to the incorrect authority granting the prior approval, which vitiated the assumption of jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA&

Hearing: 22.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.1587/Del/2026 Vinod Chauhan (AY: 2017-18) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI

BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1587/Del/2026 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vinod Chauhan Vs. Income Tax Officer A-167, First Floor, Ward 30(5) Defence Colony Delhi New Delhi – 110 024 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AKOPK8236G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Bal Krishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 15.12.2025 of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083686215(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 17.05.2023 u/s 147 of the Income

P a g e | 2 ITA No.1587/Del/2026 Vinod Chauhan (AY: 2017-18) Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by National E- Assessment Center, for AY: 2017-18.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that among other grounds on merits assesse has raised grounds challenging the assumption of jurisdiction itself on the basis of notice u/s 148 being not issued in accordance with law and ld. DR has vehemently opposed the same that on facts of the case the proposition of law relied on behalf of assesse in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Aggarwal, Civil Appeal No. 305/2022 order dated 04.05.2022 and Rajiv Bansal case reported in 469 ITR 46 are not applicable.

3.

We have perused the material on record and admittedly at page No. 42A notice u/s 148 of the Act is provided which mentions the fact that the notice dated 30.07.2022, was issued in consequence of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Aggarwal case (supra) and that the notice is being with prior approval dated 26.07.2022 granted by Pr. CIT-10. We find that copy of this approval dated 26.07.2022 is available at page No. 42 of the paper book wherein Income Tax Officer (HQ) in the office of Pr. CIT- 10, New Delhi signed this approval and has addressed the same to the assessing officer informing of the fact of approval u/s 148A(b) granted by PCIT-10, Delhi on 25.07.2022. Now admittedly, the assessment year

P a g e | 3 ITA No.1587/Del/2026 Vinod Chauhan (AY: 2017-18) involved is 2017-18 and the notice u/s 148 is dated 30.07.2022. Thus, it is the case where 3 years have elapsed and the specified authority competent to grant of approval u/s 151(ii) was Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and not Principal Chief Commissioner. Reliance for this is rightly placed by ld. Counsel on the decision in case of Rajiv Bansal (supra). In the light of aforesaid we are inclined to sustain corresponding grounds and remaining grounds are left academic. The appeal of assesse is allowed and the impugned assessment order is quashed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Amitabh Shukla) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated 30.06.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →