KYATANAHALLI MASTIGOWDA GAYATHRI JAGADISH,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) MYSORE, MYSORE

ITA 2511/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 September 2026AY 2016-1717 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.07.2022, for Assessment Year 2016-17, was invalid. The notice was issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the assessment year. As per the amended Section 151 of the Act, effective from 01.04.2021, for notices issued beyond three years, prior approval must be obtained from the specified authorities, namely the Principal Chief Commissioner/Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner/Director General. The approval obtained in this case was from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bengaluru-3, who was not vested with the requisite jurisdiction under the amended Section 151. Consequently, the assessment framed by the AO under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 28.05.2023, was devoid of valid assumption of jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order. Other legal grounds and grounds on merits were kept open.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kyatanahalli Mastigowda Gayathri Jagadish, filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC (CIT(A)) for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal was filed with a delay of 205 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal as the assessee claimed to have been unaware of the CIT(A)'s order until it was received by post. The original assessment was completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer (AO) who added Rs. 33,67,500/- as long-term capital gain to the assessee's income, alleging the sale of immovable property below stamp duty value. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order due to the assessee's non-response to hearing notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 29.07.2022, for Assessment Year 2016-17, is barred by limitation, considering it was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and if the sanction for its issuance was valid under Section 151 of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. Assessee's Contention: The notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years, requiring approval from authorities specified in Section 151(ii) (Principal Chief Commissioner/Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner/Director General). The approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bengaluru-3, which is not the specified authority under the amended Section 151, rendering the notice and consequential assessment invalid. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144B,Section 151,Section 50C,Section 54F,Section 48,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep S - Addl. CIT
Pronounced: 22.09.2026

PER SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1083465391(1) dated 12.09.2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 arising out of the Order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 28.05.2013. ITA 2511/BANG

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →