BOBBY SOIN,DEHRADUN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 253/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 August 2026AY 2016-174 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 there was a violation of Section 149(1)(b) read with Section 151 of the Act, as the approval for reopening the assessment beyond three years and involving more than Rs. 50 lakhs should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr. CCIT) and not the Principal Commissioner (PCIT). This constituted an incurable jurisdictional defect.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessee's case for AY 2018-19 due to alleged escapement of income of Rs. 2,18,55,000/- from a claim under Section 54B. The AO made additions for this alleged illegal claim and enhanced income from house property. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was unsuccessful.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the reopening of assessment was valid, specifically concerning the proper authority for granting approval under Section 151 when the assessment involved a significant amount and was initiated beyond the three-year period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54B,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DB: DEHRADUN BENCH

Before: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Matta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Chaudhary, JCIT
Hearing: 24.07.2026Pronounced: 21.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DB: DEHRADUN BENCH BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 253/DDN/2026 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Bobby Soin, Commissioner of Income Tax, C/o Matta Garg & Co., NFAC, Income Tax office, 13A, 15, Astley Hall, Vs Subhash Road, Dehradun Dehradun. PAN- AZXPS Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri S.K. Matta, CA Revenue by Shri Deepak Chaudhary, JCIT Date of Hearing 24.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 21.08.2026 ORDER Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal arises from order dated 17.03.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

1.1 We find that the case of the assessee was re-opened on account of an alleged escapement of income of Rs. 2,18,55,000/- due to a claim u/s 54B of the Act, which was apparently unverified. The Ld. AO completed these re-assessment proceedings

ITA No.- 253/DDN/2026 Bobby Soin by adding Rs. 21,8,55,000/- as an illegal claim of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and another addition of Rs. 18,200/- on account of enhanced income from house property.

1.2 The assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), where also he could not succeed on any of the grounds raised, including the legal grounds.

1.3 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the assumption of jurisdiction as well as grounds challenging the addition on merits.

2.

Before us, the Ld. AR argued on the legal issue of alleged illegal assumption of jurisdiction. It was stated that the original notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 21.06.2021, with notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act being issued on 02.06.2022. Thereafter, the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was issued on 28.07.2022. It was the submission that these proceedings were carried out in reference to the case of Ashish Agarwal [441 ITR 1 (SC)] read with CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022 (F. No. 279/Misc/M-51/2022-ITS). It was argued that since the assessment under consideration was involving an amount of more than Rs. 50 lacs and was beyond three years, considering the date of order u/s 148A(d) of the Act being 28.07.2022, it was argued that the approval was needed from Pr. CCIT u/s 151 (ii) of the Act and not from PCIT u/s 151(i) of the Act. The Ld. AR requested that the issue of alleged

ITA No.- 253/DDN/2026 Bobby Soin illegal assumption of jurisdiction needs to be considered before any hearing on merits.

2.1 The Ld. DR, on his part, took us through the orders of the authorities below and thereafter relied on the findings given therein.

3.

We have considered the arguments of Ld. AR / DR and have gone through the records before us. Considering the facts of the case, we are inclined to agree with the Ld. AR that there is a violation of section 149(1)(b) read with section 151 of the Act. For easy reference, the sequence of events needs to be captured as under:

Particulars Dates / Provisions Financial Year 2015-16 31.03.2016 Assessment Year 2016-17 31.03.2017 3-year time line 31.03.2020 30.06.2021 (Extended by TOLA) Original 148 21.06.2021 Amount under allegation Rs 2,18,55,000 (Beyond Rs 50 lakhs) 148A(b) issued on 2.06.2022 148A(d) issued on 28.07.2022 (Beyond 3 years and beyond 50 lakhs) Applicable provision u/s 149 S. 149(1)(b) (if three years of the Act but not more than ten years) Applicable provision u/s 151 S. 151 (ii) Principal Chief of the Act Commissioner

3.1 It is clear that the approval was required to be obtained from Pr. CCIT and not PCIT (as has been done in this case). Accordingly, there is an incurable jurisdictional 3

ITA No.- 253/DDN/2026 Bobby Soin defect which vitiates the impugned proceedings. We are also fortified by a number of case laws on the subject and for the sake of reference, one case of Vikram Kapahi vs. ACIT, reported in 170 taxmann.com 592 (Del.) [order dated 13.03.2024], deserves to be mentioned. Accordingly, the assessment order dated 18.05.2023 is quashed following an illegal assumption of jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessee succeeds in his appeal.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [SANJAY AWASTHI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 21.08.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

More judgments on Section 54B

All 814 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →