ANITA CHETAN ,SAKSHI NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1)., INCOME TAX OFFICE, RAILWAY ROAD.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH (SMC), AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 177/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anita Chetan Vs. ITO, Sakshi Nagar, Sikohabad Road, Ward-3(2)(1), Etah (UP)-207001. Etah. PAN : AOPPC4230F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sahil Sharma Adv., Sh. Sanjay Parashar, Adv. Department by Sh. Harsh Siddharth Gautam, Sr. DR (Physical hearing) Date of hearing 22.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 24.04.2026 ORDER PER : S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Chennai dated 08.12.2025 for the Assessment Year 2012-13.

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Chennai] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), confirming the income escaping assessment order dated 19.12.2019

ITA No.177/Agr/2026

passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act imposing a total addition of Rs. 16,22,724/-, is arbitrary, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the income escaping assessment proceedings despite the Appellant's consistent contention that no notice under section 148 and subsequent statutory notices were ever served upon the Appellant, rendering the proceedings invalid and void ab initio. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in sustaining the said proceedings by placing reliance on a presumption of service of notices, without the Revenue having established lawful and effective service, and in complete disregard of the principles of natural justice. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the protective addition of ₹14,70,500/- in the hands of the Appellant in respect of cash deposits in a joint bank account, despite recording a finding that the same amount has already been subjected to substantive assessment in the hands of the other joint holder. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that a protective addition cannot be sustained in the absence of material establishing that the Appellant is the real owner of the impugned cash deposits, and that continuation of such protective addition results in impermissible double taxation. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹1,52,224/- as income from other sources, without properly appreciating the Appellant's contention that her total income did not exceed the basic exemption limit for the relevant assessment year and that the additions were made mechanically on the basis of Form 26AS and bank statements. That the Appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify or vary any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, except to the extent of raising any additional legal ground with the permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.”

ITA No.177/Agr/2026

adjudicated on the basis of material on record, by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT (1988) 299 ITR 383 (SC). After considering the submission of the Ld. DR and the material facts available on record,. We are inclined to admit the additional grounds of appeal for adjudication. The assessee has filed additional ground of appeal as under:-

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reasons to believe are based on sole reliance on the AIR information under borrowed satisfaction, rendering the income escaping assessment proceedings legally void." 2. "That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the approval granted u/s 151 is mechanical in nature which renders the income escaping assessment proceedings legally void". 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee brought to my notice at page 4 of the paper book which is approval granted u/s 151 of the Act by the PCIT, Aligah. He brought to my notice the approval granted by the PCIT with the observation that “yes” satisfied with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In this regard, he submitted that the above approval granted by the Ld. PCIT is mechanical and without application of mind. In this regard, Ld. AR of the assessee brought to my notice decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Banarsi Lal vs. ITO in ITA No. 317/Agr/2025 dated 20.03.2026.

3 | P a g e

ITA No.177/Agr/2026

a) Experion Developers P Ltd. vs ACIT reported in 422 ITR 355 (Del HC)

b) Virbhadra Singh vs DCIT reported in 88 taxmann.com 88 (HP HC)

c) Sonia Gandhi vs ACIT reported in 407 ITR 594 (Del HC)

“3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has filed its return of income on 7.6.2016 for AY 2014- 15 declaring total income of Rs. 1,85,440/-, This return was treated as non-est by the ld AO. The Ld. AO noted that he had received information that assessee had sold agricultural lands and had derived income from agricultural activities. On the basis of information received, the Ld. AO sought to reopen the assessment of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act vide issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 2.2.2017. The assessee filed return of income on 27.3.2017 in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment together with the approval granted by the Additional 4 | P a g e

ITA No.177/Agr/2026

CIT, Range 2(2), Firozabad in terms of section 151 of the Act. The approval granted by the Additional CIT, Range 2(2), Firozabad is enclosed in Page 18 of the Paper Book. On perusal of the proforma seeking approval u/s 151 of the Act, we find that the Ld. Addl CIT had merely stated that he is satisfied that this is fit case for reopening. This sort of approval granted u/s 151 of the Act was held to be approval granted without application of mind and construed as mechanical by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Goyenka Lime and Chemicals Ltd reported in 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP HC). The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the revenue against this decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 64 taxmann.com 313. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of PCIT Vs. NC Cables Ltd reported in 391 ITR 11 (Del) had also held the same, wherein, the approving authority had merely stated "approved" in the proforma while granting approval in terms of section 151 of the Act. This approval was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High court to be a mechanical approval. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent decision in the case of SBC Minerals P Ltd. vs ACIT reported in 475 ITR 360 (Del) had also held that similar kind of approval granted in a mechanical manner would vitiate the basic assumption of jurisdiction of the Ld. AO resulting in quashing of reassessment proceedings. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Ltd. vs DCIT reported in 464 ITR 385 (Bom). 5. 5. We find that the various decisions quoted by both the L.d. AR as well as the Ld. DR are non-jurisdictional high courts giving conflicting decisions. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vegetable Products Ltd reported in 88 ITR 192 (SC) had held that when there are conflicting decisions of non-jurisdictional high courts on the same issue, then the construction that is favourable to the assessee need to be adopted. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the reopening has been made in the instant case by not taking approval u/s 151 of the Act from the competent authority in the manner known to law. Accordingly, the entire reassessment proceedings are hereby quashed. Hence, one of the additional grounds challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act is allowed in the above mentioned terms. Since the reassessment is quashed, the other legal grounds raised by the assessee as well as the grounds raised by the assessee on merits need not be adjudicated and they are left open.” 7. Respectfully following above decision, I am inclined to allow the additional ground raised by the assessee. Other grounds of appeal are not adjudicated at this stage and kept open. 5 | P a g e

ITA No.177/Agr/2026

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.04.2026. Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24.04.2026 *Santosh, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

6 | P a g e