INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA vs. PORWAL YUVAK SANG KOTA, KOTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1431/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 June 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable due to the low tax effect, irrespective of the correctness of the CIT(A)'s decision. The cross-objections were also dismissed as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions, arguing that the CIT(A) misinterpreted the authority for approving reassessment notices. The tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the Revenue's appeals before the Tribunal given the low tax effect and the interpretation of the competent authority for reassessment approval.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151,Section 149,Section 268A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Adv & Sh. Ashok Gupta, Adv
Hearing: 24.03.2026Pronounced: 08.06.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

CO No.58/JPR/2025
CO No.59/JPR/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 1430 & 1431/JPR/2025 Porwal Yuvak Sang IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” BENCH, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1430 & 1431/JPR/2025 (Assessment Years:2016-17 & 2017-18)

Income Tax Officer, Vs. Porwal Yuvak Sang Kota Kota 7-O.C.F. Subhash Nagar Kota 324005 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAAAP7068G Appellant .. Respondent

CO No.58/JPR/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.1431/JPR/2025) (Assessment Year:2016-17)

Porwal Yuvak Sang Kota Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7-O.C.F. Subhash Nagar Kota Kota 324005 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAAAP7068G Appellant .. Respondent

CO No.59/JPR/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.1430/JPR/2025) (Assessment Year:2017-18)

P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 1430 & 1431/JPR/2025 Porwal Yuvak Sang Porwal Yuvak Sang Kota Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7-O.C.F. Subhash Nagar Kota Kota 324005 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAAAP7068G Appellant .. Respondent

Appellant by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv & Sh. Ashok Gupta, Adv Respondent by : Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Date of Hearing 24.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 08.06.2026 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned two appeals by the Revenue and corresponding cross objections by the assessee have been preferred against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) for different assessment years dated 22.08.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).

2.

Though, the tax effect involved in both the appeals of the Revenue is less than the prescribed monetary limit, however, the Ld. DR has stated that in this case the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeals of the assessee and deleted the additions, accepting the legal ground of the assessee that the sanction u/s 151 of the Act has been given by the Principal

P a g e | 3 ITA Nos. 1430 & 1431/JPR/2025 Porwal Yuvak Sang Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas, post Finance Act 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.202, the specific Authority u/s 151 of the Act to grant the approval for reopening the assessment beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year is the Principal CCIT/CCIT and not Principal CIT or CIT. He, therefore, has submitted that the approval u/s 151 of the Act was granted in this case by the competent authority; the Ld. CIT(A), however, wrongly observed that the approval was not granted by the competent authority, therefore, he wrongly quashed the assessment.

3.

Before us, the Ld. DR has relied upon instruction No.01/2022 dated 11th May 2022 of the CBDT, wherein, in para 6.2(ii) of the said instruction, it has been provided as under: -

“ii) AY 16-17. AY 17-18: Fresh notice under section 148 can be issued in these cases with the approval of the specified authority, under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of new section 149 of the Act, since they are within the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Specified authority under section 151 of the new law in this case shall be the authority prescribed under clause (i) of that section.” 4. The Ld. DR has contended that as per the above instructions of CBDT, the competent authority for Assessment Year 2016-17 and Assessment Year 2017-18 shall be the specified Authority as given under clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of new Section 149 of the Act and the specified Authority u/s 151 of the new law in that case will be the Authority prescribed under Clause (i) of that section which is Principal CIT. The Ld. DR, therefore, has submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was therefore, not sustainable as he has wrongly observed that in this case

P a g e | 4 ITA Nos. 1430 & 1431/JPR/2025 Porwal Yuvak Sang the Authority prescribed under Clause (ii) will be the specified Authority, whereas, as per the instruction of the Board, the specific Authority would be as prescribed under clause (i) of Section 151 of the Act. He has further submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) has not correctly interpreted the CBDT instructions and misinterpreted the relevant provisions by holding that the specific Authority will be as prescribed under clause (ii) of Section 151 instead of clause (i) of section 151 of the Act, therefore, the case of the assessee is hit by the exclusion Clauses 3.1(b) and 3.1(i) of the Circular No. 5/2024, which for sake of ready reference, are reproduced as under:-

“(b). Where any order, notification, instruction or circular of the Board or the Government has been held to be illegal or ultra vires the Act or otherwise constitutionally invalid, or ………….. (i) Where mandated by a Court’s directions, or ……………….” 5. He, therefore, has submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has violated the instructions of the Board and that the AO had rightly proceeded for reopening of the assessment as per the law laid down in decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022 SCC online SC 543).

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the record. The clause 3.1(b) of the circular No.5/2024 states that the monetary limit for filing appeal to the Appellate Authorities should not be applicable

P a g e | 5 ITA Nos. 1430 & 1431/JPR/2025 Porwal Yuvak Sang where any order, notification, instruction or circular of the Board or the Government has been held to be illegal or ultra vires of the Act or otherwise constitutionally invalid.

7.

As noted above from the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not held any order, notification, instruction or circular of the Board or of the Government to be illegal or ultra vires the statute or otherwise constitutionally invalid. The department’s case is that the Ld. CIT(A) has misinterpreted the relevant provisions, therefore, his finding is wrong. However, we note that whether the finding of Ld. CIT(A) is wrong or correct, that has not to be seen after determining the issue as to whether the appeal of the Revenue is maintainable before this Tribunal or not on account of the tax effect being less than the prescribed monetary limit by the CBDT as prescribed u/s 268A of the Act.

8.

Further, as per clause (i) to Section 3.1 of Circular No.5 of 2024, the appeal will be filed by the Board irrespective of the prescribed monetary limit, if it was mandated or directed by a Court. In this case, there is no direction by any Court that in this case the appeal should be mandatorily filed. Therefore, irrespective of the fact whether the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is legally correct or not, the appeals of the department are not maintainable before this Tribunal, the tax effect being less than the prescribed monetary limit as prescribed by the CBDT exercising its power u/s 268A of the Act.

P a g e | 6 ITA Nos. 1430 & 1431/JPR/2025 Porwal Yuvak Sang

9.

Both the appeals of the revenue are, therefore, dismissed.

10.

At this stage, the Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that since the appeals of the department have been dismissed as not maintainable, he therefore, does not press the cross objections; the same are also accordingly dismissed.

11.

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and corresponding cross objections of the assessee, are hereby dismissed.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 08/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ratnesh Nandan Sahay) (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated 08.06.2026 Mittali, Sr. PS True Copy Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT By Order, Asst. Registrar ITAT, Jaipur

More judgments on Section 151

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →