KASIVISWANATHA RAJA RAMMOHAN,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3,, VIRUDHUNAGAR

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बीʼ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी एस.एस. िव�ने� रिव, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस.आर. रगुनाथ, लेखा सद� के सम& Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2026 िनधा'रण वष'/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kasiviswanatha Raja Rammohan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.24/B2, Kondurmoorthy Raja Ward – 3, Street, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar. Virudhunagar – 626 117. [PAN: AEOPR-6836-H] (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) (*+थ)/Respondent) अपीलाथ) की ओर से / Appellant by : Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CA *+थ) की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 15.04.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 18.06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19.

2 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2026 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 026 026 026

additional ground no.1 could not be raised at the time of filing of appeal

before this Tribunal due to inadvertence and also could not be visualized

before the ld.CIT(A). He submits that the additional ground no.1 is

jurisdictional in nature and goes to the root of the matter and the facts

relating to the said additional ground are very much available on record.

He placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of National Thermal Power Co Ltd vs CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 and

argued that the assessee is entitled to raise legal ground for the first time

and prayed to admit the said additional ground as a preliminary issue.

return of income filed. The AO on noticing cash deposits and withdrawals

issued notice u/s. 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (herein after “the Act”)

on 07.04.2022 and in response to which the assessee filed return of income

declaring a total income of Rs.17,85,720/-. The AO by issuing notice u/s.

142(1) of the Act and considering the replies, having not satisfied with the

same, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.1,34,71,141/- vide his

order dated 07.03.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The

ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO for non-compliance of hearing

notices issued u/s. 250 of the Act. Having not satisfied with the order of

the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us.

3 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2026 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 026 026 026

dated 07.04.2022 issued u/s. 148 of the Act and contended that the

impugned reassessment proceedings are null and void as the AO had

failed to obtain the approval from the specified authority u/s.151(ii) of the

Act, at the time of passing the order u/s.148A(d) of the Act dated

07.04.2022. It is contended that the AO obtained approval of the Principal

Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1 as evident from the order

passed u/s.148A(d) and notice u/s. 148 of the Act at page nos. 3 to 5 of

paper book, instead of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the

Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, since the period of more than three

years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. It is

submitted that since the AO had not fulfilled this statutory condition as laid

down under clause (ii) of section 151 of the Act as stood at the relevant

point of time, the reassessment proceedings are null and void and placed

reliance on the orders from page nos. 3 to 5 of the paper book.

Addl.CIT, opposed the above submissions, submits that since the appellant

had failed to raise this ground of appeal before the lower authorities, the

appellant cannot be permitted to raise this ground of appeal.

4 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2026 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 026 026 026

Admittedly in the present case, order u/s.148A(d) and notice u/s.148 of the

Act was issued on 07.04.2022, which means that the period of more than

three years had been elapsed from the end of the assessment year 2018-

19 i.e. 31.03.2019. We find the provisions of section 151 clause (ii)

mandates that before notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued, where the

period of three years elapsed from the relevant assessment year, AO has

to obtain approval from the specified authority who is the Principal Chief

Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or

Director General. The relevant provisions as they stood at the relevant

point of time are as under:-

“151. Sanction for issue of notice: - Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be, - (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year;”

the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as evident from the notice dated

07.04.2022 u/s.148 of the Act. It is trite law that statutory authority like AO

is bound to act in the manner prescribed in the law not in any other manner.

Non satisfaction of the jurisdictional conditions laid down u/s.151 of the Act

5 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2026 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 026 026 026

renders the reassessment proceedings null and void as held by the Hon’ble

Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Core Logistic Company (supra).

The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of

Core Logistic Company (supra) reads as follows:-

“9. A perusal of Section 151(i) would show that, the specified authority for the purpose of issuing notice under Section 148 within a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year is, the Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director. Further, in terms of provision of Section 149, three year time period is fixed for issuance of 148 notice, in the event of the amount is below 50 lakhs. In the present case, the amount involved is Rs.3,65,09,748/~, which is more than 50 lakhs. 148 notice was issued on 25.07.2022, which is beyond the period of three years. So admittedly, the approval has to be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General as defined under Section 151(ii). But, in the present case, the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner in terms of Section 151(i) and no approval was obtained before issuance of 148 notice in terms of provision of Section 151(ii), which is mandatory. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was issued in the present case in violation of provision of Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. In view thereof, the initiation of proceedings itself is without any jurisdiction. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed.”

circumstances of the present case are similar to the facts before the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Core Logistic Company

(Supra), thereby hold the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the AO

by issuing notice dated 07.04.2022 u/s. 148 of the Act as barred by

limitation, consequentially re-assessment order dated 07.03.2024 is invalid

and quashed. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside and additional

ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed.

6 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2026 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 I.T.A. No. 780/Chny/2 026 026 026

Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated: 18.06.2026 JPV आदेश की *ितिलिप अ1ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ)/Appellant, 2.*+थ)/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु2/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय *ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड' फाईल/GF.

PRASANNA Digitally signed by PRASANNA VANI JETTY VANI JETTY Date: 2026.06.19 10:19:54 +05'30'