VINTAGE SHADES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 52(1), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 419/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2026AY 2017-184 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid because the approval for reopening was obtained from the wrong authority. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment for AY 2017-18 was reopened under Section 147. The Assessing Officer obtained approval for reopening from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT). This was done for an assessment reopened beyond 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings are valid when the approval under Section 151 was obtained from a PCIT instead of a PCCIT for reopening beyond 3 years.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 151,Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CA, Shri Satyajeet Goyal, CA, Shri Rajat Garg, CA
For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Hearing: 12/05/2026Pronounced: 26/05/2026

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 419/Del/2026 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vintage Shades, Vs. ACIT, G-12, South Extension, Circle-52(1), New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAEFV8453C Assessee by : Shri R. S. Singhvi, CA Shri Satyajeet Goyal, CA Shri Rajat Garg, CA Revenue by: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing 12/05/2026 Date of pronouncement 26/05/2026

O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.419 /Del/2026 for AY 2017-18, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 15.12.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 18.05.2023 by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

2.

The assessee has raised several grounds challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act. One such legal issue raised by the assessee is as to whether the assumption of jurisdiction of the Learned AO under section 147 of the Act could be construed as valid when the approval under section 151 of the Act has been obtained from Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of Learned Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT ) .

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a partnership firm and had filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 2-11-2017 declaring total income of Rs 50,75,640. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 26-12-2019 determining total income at Rs 76,93,968.

4.

The issue involved is reopening of assessment for the Assessment Year 2017-18. For this purpose, the Learned AO obtained approval under section 151 of the Act from the Learned PCIT which fact is quite evident from the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 27-7-2022. Since the reopening in the instant case has been made beyond 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified sanctioning authority for the purposes of section 148 of the Act is Learned PCCIT. Since the approval in the instant case has been obtained from a wrong authority, the entire reassessment proceedings gets vitiated. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the Learned AR before us on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Kids Dream International Private Limited vs ACIT in W P (C ) 2814/2023 dated 24-2- 2025 . The relevant operative portion of the said order is reproduced below:-

“2. As is evident from the above, the solitary question which was canvassed for our consideration was the issue of sanction as contemplated under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]. 3.The reassessment action for Assessment Year [“AY”] 2017-18 came to be commenced immediately after a lapse of three years from the end of the relevant AY. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that Mr. Kantoor, learned counsel, had submitted that the said sanction accorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [“PCIT”] would not sustain. Page | 2

4.

We note that while dealing with the said question, we had in Abhinav Jindal H.U.F. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors [2024 SCC OnLine Del 6585] duly enunciated the legal position which would obtain. We had ultimately in Abhinav Jindal held that the Taxation & Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [“TOLA”] provisions would have no bearing on the identification of the competent authority under section 151 for according sanction. 5. In view of the aforesaid, and since undisputedly the facts of the present case the sanction was accorded only by the PCIT, the reassessment action would not sustain. 6. Accordingly and for all the aforesaid reasons, we allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned order referable to section 148A(d) dated 30 July 2022 and notice under section 148 of even date.”

5.

Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of H and M Hennes and Mauritz Retail P Ltd vs ACIT reported in 174 taxmann.com 1113 (Del HC) dated 14-5-2025.

6.

Respectfully following the same, the reassessment proceedings are hereby quashed and Ground No. 6.1. raised by the assessee is allowed.

7.

Since, the entire reassessment is quashed, the other grounds raised by the assessee both on law as well on facts need not be gone into and they are left open.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 26/05/2026.

-Sd/- -Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 26/04/2026 A K Keot Copy forwarded to Page | 3

1.

Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →