SHREE SHYAM PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-9(1), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3102/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 June 2026AY 2019-20204 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the reopening was after three years from the assessment year, the approval of the Pr.CCIT, not the Pr.CIT, was required under Section 151. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a NIL income return for AY 2019-20. A notice under Section 148 was issued after obtaining approval from the PCIT, Kolkata, based on information regarding sale consideration of immovable property. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 1,43,50,000 as unexplained cash credit.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 when the approval for reopening was granted by the incorrect authority (Pr.CIT instead of Pr.CCIT) after the expiry of three years from the relevant assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151,Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member ITA No.3102/KOL/2025 Assessment Year- 2019-2020

Shree Shyam Projects Pvt Ltd.……………………….………………………….Appellant 151/A, Cotton, Street, Burrabazar, Kolkata, [PAN No AAECS4890D. ] Vs. I.T.O., Ward-9(1).….……………..………………..…………….………... Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- 700069 Appearances by: Deep Agarwal, AR, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : June 15, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : June 25 ,2026 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.09.2025 of the Office of The Income Tax Department [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(E)’] of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel of the assessee raised the legal issue that the proceeding-initiated u/s 148 as invalid and void ab initio as the same is based upon the invalid approval granted u/s 151 of the Act.

ITA No.3102/KOL/2025 Assessment Year- 2019-20 2. The brief facts of the case of the assessee, assessee files return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 declaring income at Rs. NIL upon receiving an information the notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 14.04.2023 after obtaining approval from PCIT/1/KOL the information was received regarding the sale consideration of the immovable property of Rs. 20,00,000/- from buyers of flats sold in their project. The assessing officers finally passed an order by treating an amount of Rs. 1,43,50,000 as unexplained cash credit by invoking the provisions of Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act.

The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.

3.

The Ld. AR challenges the very impugned order by taking the legal ground by submitting that the Ld. JAO issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act after taking approval from Ld. Pr.CIT KOL on 14.04.2023, beyond a period of three years from the relevant assessment year as against Ld. Pr.CCIT who is the specified authority to accord approval for issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the notice issued u/s 148 is deemed to be invalid notice.

Contrary to that Ld. DR supports the impugned order.

4.

Upon hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, we find that admittedly, the case of the assessee has been reopened after a period of three years from the end of the assessment year and, therefore, the sanction of Ld. Pr.CCIT has to be obtained for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act

ITA No.3102/KOL/2025 Assessment Year- 2019-20 and not the Ld. Pr.CIT whose approval to be obtained for issuance of notice, therefore, the reopening of the assessment on the basis of the said notice is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The issue is no more res integra, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal, reported in 469 ITR 46 (SC) has held vide para 114(d) that it is the Pr.CCIT who should grant sanction u/s. 151 of the Act since the reopening is after three years. We also note that the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been followed in series of decisions by the various Tribunal and Hon'ble High Courts. Some of the decisions wherein the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has beenfollowed, as under :-

i) Shri Devang Ajit Jhaveri, ITA No.3509/Mum/2024, dated 29.01.2025 (AY: 2016-2017); ii) Sakshi Ratneshchand Jain, ITA No.1741/Mum/2024, dated 10.02.2025 (AY: 2016-2017); iii) Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., order dated 05.03.2025 (AY: 2016-2017) (Delhi High Court); iv) Chandrakant ViththalBhopi, ITA No.2405/Pune/2024, dated 07.05.2025 (AY: 2016-2017)

5.

In view of the above, we quash the invalid notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act holding the same as void ab initio as the same is based upon the invalid approval granted u/s. 151 of the Act. In consequence thereof, the reassessment proceeding in the case of the assessee is also hereby quashed.

. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

ITA No.3102/KOL/2025 Assessment Year- 2019-20

Kolkata, the 25th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated:. 25 .06. 2026. DC, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order AssistantRegistrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →