TAPAN JENA,BALASORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BALASORE, BALASORE

ITA 566/CTK/2026Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 September 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The assessment year in question was 2017-18, and the notice was issued on 29.07.2022, which is beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. As per Section 151(ii) of the Act, in such cases, the approval for issuing the notice must be granted by the Pr. CCIT. However, in this case, the approval was granted by the Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO vs. Prakash Pandurang Patil, the Tribunal found that the approval was granted by a lower authority and not the appropriate authority. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 was quashed, and the consequential assessments were also rendered invalid and quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Tapan Jena, filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee had initially disclosed an income of Rs. 98,51,560/-. The assessment was reopened by issuing a notice under Section 148 on 29.07.2022. The notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The crucial fact is that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was granted by the Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar, instead of the Pr. CCIT, as contended by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid due to the approval for its issuance being granted by an authority of a lower rank than prescribed under Section 151(ii) of the Act, when the reassessment proceedings were initiated after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year? (Question of law turning on Section 148 and Section 151(ii)). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the approval for the notice under Section 148 was granted by the Pr. CIT, whereas it should have been granted by the Pr. CCIT, as per Section 151(ii). Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in ITO vs. Prakash Pandurang Patil, the assessee contended that since the approval was granted by the wrong authority, the notice and the consequent assessment are liable to be quashed. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the ld. Sr. DR, supported the order of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the validity of the approval.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY

Hearing: 30/09/2026Pronounced: 30/09/2026

Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, DELHI [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2016-17/10255396 dated 27.08.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri P. K. Mishra, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. D.R. represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the impugned assessment year is 2017-18. The assessee had filed its return on 26.10.2017 disclosing an income of Rs.98,51,560/-. It was the submission that the assessment wa

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →