BHARAT KUMAR,DELHI vs. PROPRIETOR, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6902/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 June 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that for reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval for issuing a Section 148 notice must be obtained from the PCCIT, not the PCIT. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed due to improper sanction.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2016-17. The primary contention was that the approval for issuing the Section 148 notice was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), as required for reopening beyond three years.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings are invalid due to the improper authority granting sanction for the issuance of a notice under Section 148, when the reopening is beyond the three-year period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SMT RENU JAUHRI

Hearing: 09.04.2026Pronounced: 05.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.6902/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Bharat Kumar Vs. ITO 2263-68 (III-F), Naya Ward 47(1) Bazar, Delhi New Delhi PAN NO.BGUPK6950Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Vijay Gupta, Advocate Sh. Maneesh Jain, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 05.06.2026 ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dated 08.08.2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to ground No.1 of grounds of appeal submitted that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and assessment framed u/s.147 of the Act pursuant to such notice is bad in law for the reason that there is no proper sanction by appropriate authority u/s.151 of the Act.

3.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in this case a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issue on 31.07.2022 for reopening the assessment for A.Y.2016-17 which is beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, as per provision of section 151 (ii) of the Act the approval for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act should have been obtained from PCCIT. However, in the case of the assessee the AO obtained approval from PCIT who was not the specified competent authority as per section 151(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the entire proceedings and orders are vitiate being invalid and therefore, they are liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (469 ITR 46) and Abhinav Jindal HUF Vs. ITO W.P. (C) 2698/2022 dated 20.09.2024 (Delhi High Court) and Rajbir Singh Vs. ACIT in ITA No.3104/Del/2025 dated 14.11.2025.

4.

Heard rival contentions. We find considerable merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abhinav Jindal HUF Vs. ITO (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra). Further, this Tribunal is consistently following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, holding that when an Page | 2

assessment is reopened beyond of the period of years from the end of the relevant assessment year by issue of a notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the appropriate authority u/s.151(ii) of the Act to grant permission for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act for reopening of an assessment is PCCIT and not PCIT. Thus, respectfully following the said decision we allow the ground no.1 of grounds of appeal and quash the reassessment order accordingly. All the other grounds except ground No.1 are left open. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RENU JAUHRI] [C.N. PRASAD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 05.06.2026

NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →