M/S. NARAYANI GLOBAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(1),, DURGAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 57/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2026AY 2013-20148 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to the notice being issued by a non-jurisdictional AO, the absence of income escapement quantification in the 148A(d) order, and the invalid prior approval obtained from the wrong authority. Consequently, the assessment framed was also quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment for AY 2013-14 was reopened by the AO. The assessee challenged the reopening and the consequent assessment on multiple grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, absence of income escapement quantification in the 148A(d) order, and invalid prior approval for reopening beyond three years.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment and the consequent assessment are invalid due to the notice being issued by a non-jurisdictional officer and invalid prior approval. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) is valid without quantifying escaped income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AR
For Respondent: Shri Soumitra Ghosh, DR
Hearing: 02.04.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 19.11.2025 for the AY 2013-14.

2.

At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee challenged the reopening of assessment and the consequent assessment to be invalid on various grounds and prayed that the notice as well as the consequent assessment is nullity and may kindly be quashed.

3.

The facts in brief are that the reassessment proceedings has been initiated vide notice dated 29.07.2022, issued u/s 148 of the Act after passing the order u/s 148 A(d) of the Act of even

4.

The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the reopening of assessment made by the ld. AO as well as the consequent assessment framed are bad in law and nullity for following three reasons:-

i. That the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued by a non-jurisdictional AO i.e. ITO Ward 1(1), Durgapur, whereas the assessee is based in Kolkata and the notice is also addressed to (Narayani Global Flat No.1, 7A corn Field road, Kolkata, West Bengal- 700019, India dated 29.07.2022. Similarly, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 15.04.2021, originally was also issued by ITO Ward 1(1), Durgapur. The assessment in this case was framed

ii. The ld. AR submitted that in the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act, there is no quantification of income escaping the assessment as there is no mention of escapement of income in the same. Moreover, there is no finding recorded by the ld. AO as the income has escaped assessment in the said order. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act based on the said order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 29.07.2022, is nullity and bad in law and so is the assessment framed consequently.

iii. The ld. AR also submitted that in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022, the prior permission has been obtained from the ld. PCIT, Asansol on 28.07.2022, as has been mentioned in Para no.3 of the said notice issued u/s 148 of the Actg dated 29.7.2022 which is in contravention of Section 151(ii) of the Act, which provides that in case of reopening beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the competent authority would be Principal Chief Commissioner of income tax . Therefore, even the approval has been taken from the wrong authority and therefore, the approval gramted u/s 151 of the Act .notice issued

5.

The ld. DR relied on heavily on the orders of the authorities below.

6.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15.04.2021, during TOLA period. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act dated 26.05.2022, which was replied by the assessee and thereafter, after taking into consideration the reply filed by the assessee, an order was passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 29.07.2022. Thereafter, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.07.2022.We note that the original notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15.04.2021. The second notice issued u/s 148 of the Act after following the procedure as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)/[2022] 286 Taxman 183 (SC)/[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC)[04-05-2022], was issued on 29.07.2022. Both these notices were issued by ITO Ward 1(1), Durgapur, whereas the assessee is based in Kolkata and the address of the assessee is Flat No.1, 7A Corn Field Road, Kolkata- 700019, West Bengal. Similarly the assessment was framed by the same officer. In our opinion, the ITO ward 1(1), Durgapur has no jurisdiction over the assessee. We note that the notices issued u/s 148 of the Act were issued by the non- jurisdictional AO and therefore, the same are invalid and so is the consequent assessment framed.

8.

Thirdly, we observe from the perusal of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.07.2022 that the said notice has been issued after obtaining prior approval of ld. PCIT, Asansol on 28.07.2022, vide reference number PCIT/ASI/approval/ 2022- 23/1807, which is invalid because in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Act, the specified authority for the purpose of Section 148 of the Act shall be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and not the ld. PCIT. We find that the assessment was reopened after a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year as the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.07.2022, whereas the assessment year involved is 2013-14 and thus is apparently beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, in term of section 151 of the Act, the approval was required to be taken from the ld. PCCIT, whereas the AO has taken approval from ld. PCIT-5, Kolkata. In our opinion, the approval has not been granted by the competent authority as prescribed under section 151 of the Act. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and consequent assessment are

“4. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 22 April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai- 5. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-2019 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 22 April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 of the Act has been inserted only with effect from 1" April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand. 5. In the circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 22nd April 2022 under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside.” 8.1. Similarly, decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Vodafone Idea Ltd. Vs. DCIT vide WP No. 2768 of 2022 dated 06.02.2024, wherein it has followed the decision of Agnello Oswin Dias (supra), as under:-

“1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 19 March 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice both dated 7th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. One of the grounds raised is that the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is invalid inasmuch as the sanction has been admittedly issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT") and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT"). 2. Petitioner's request for a copy of the sanction has also been denied. Even in the affidavit in reply, the Department is refusing to give the sanction which makes us wonder what is the national secret involved in that, that Assessee is being refused what he is rightfully entitled to receive from the Department. In the affidavit in reply, the stand taken by the Revenue is it will be made available during the re-assessment proceeding. 3. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai 5. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-19 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning

Considering the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to quash the reopening of assessment as well as the assessment framed by the ld. AO.

9.

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

Order pronounced on 20.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 20.05.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →