V P DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. A.O, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7164/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond three years requires approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, not just the PCIT. Therefore, the notice issued was defective and the reassessment proceedings were void-ab-initio.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment for AY 2016-17 was reopened after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The notice under Section 148 was issued after obtaining approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT).

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment beyond three years was validly done with the requisite approval from the competent authority as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 11.09.2025, for AY 2016-17.

2.

The assessee in appeal has inter alia assailed validity of reopening of assessment.

ITA 7164/DEL/2025 V P DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LIMITED 3. Shri S. L. Sachdeva, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that in the instant case, assessment has been reopened beyond the period of three years. The provisions of section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) mandates that where the assessment is reopened after the elapse of three years from the end of the relevant assessment order, approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is mandatory. In the present case notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 17.07.2022 i.e. after the elapse of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, after seeking prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). Thus, reopening of assessment is without jurisdiction. To substantiate his submissions, the ld. AR referred to notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 17.07.2022 at page 341 & 342 of the paper book. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UOI & Rajeev Bansal, 469 ITR 46 to contend that after 01.04.2021, new regime has specified different authorities for granting approvals. The prior approvals have to be strictly obtained from the competent authorities as specified u/s.151 of the Act.

4.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the Department strongly supported the impugned order. The ld. DR submits that the Assessing Officer (AO) has obtained approval from the Competent Authority before issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act.

5.

We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of the authorities below. Undisputedly, assessment in the case of assessee for A.Y. 2016-17 has been reopened beyond the period of three years from the end of relevant assessment year. Notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 17.07.2022 after obtaining prior approval of the PCIT. A copy of notice u/s.148 of the Act is at pages 341 & 342 of the paper book. The provisions of section 151 of the Act are unambiguous in so far as the specified authority from whom approval has to be obtained for the purpose of sections

ITA 7164/DEL/2025 V P DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LIMITED

148 and 148A of the Act is concerned. Where notice u/s 148 of the Act is issued after elapse of more than three years from the relevant assessment year, the AO is required to obtain approval from the PCCIT or CCIT. It is evident from the records that the AO has not taken prior approval from the competent authority in the present case, thus making the notice defective. Any proceedings arising from defective notice u/s 148 of the Act are non-est and are without jurisdiction. Thus, in light of the facts of case and the provisions of section 151 of the Act as were applicable at the time when notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee, the reassessment proceedings are void-ab-initio, hence, quashed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 26th day of February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH VIKAS AWASTHY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 14-05-2026 NV

Copy to: V P DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, 7575, GALI NO. 1, RAM NAGAR, PAHAR 1 GANJ NEW DELHI, DELHI-110055, DELHI A.O, 2 AO WARD 26(3) CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

ITA 7164/DEL/2025 V P DISTRIBUTORS PRIVATE LIMITED

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →