FEROSH D MARAK,MEGHALAYA vs. ITO, W-1, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA

ITA 264/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 October 2026AY 2016-201724 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ferosh D Marak, filed appeals against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The appeals challenged the orders passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which upheld the reassessment orders passed by the ITO, Ward-1, Shillong, under Section 147. For AY 2015-16, the total income was assessed at Rs. 1,55,33,927/- with a demand of Rs. 1,42,79,585/-. For AY 2016-17, the total income was assessed at Rs. 28,27,623/- with a demand of Rs. 17,89,057/-. For AY 2017-18, the total income was assessed at Rs. 1,63,40,422/- with a demand of Rs. 2,84,42,731/-. The assessee contended that the notices and orders were invalid due to procedural irregularities, including issuance by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and improper approval for reopening beyond three years.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the additional grounds raised by the assessee regarding the procedural irregularities in the issuance of notices. For AY 2015-16, the Tribunal noted that the legal ground raised by the assessee was dismissed, and the case was decided on merits, resulting in a partial allowance. However, for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 were not proper in the eyes of the law. Specifically, it was observed that for reopening beyond three years, the approval should have been obtained from the PCCIT, but in this case, approval was obtained from the PCIT. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Mrs. Chitra Supekar vs. ITO, the Tribunal held that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 was not proper. Consequently, the appeals for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18 were allowed. The ratio decidendi is that non-compliance with the mandatory provisions regarding obtaining approval from the appropriate authority (PCCIT for reopening beyond three years) renders the reassessment proceedings void.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices and orders issued under Sections 148A, 148, and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and illegal due to being issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), contrary to the amended provisions of Section 151A read with Section 144B of the Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether the reassessment proceedings are void and bad in law due to the invalidity of the notices and orders issued under Section 148A and Section 148, particularly concerning the approval obtained for reopening beyond three years? Assessee's Contentions: - The notices and orders were issued by the JAO, not the FAO, violating Section 151A read with Section 144B. - The notices were invalid as they were issued beyond the limitation period without proper compliance with the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020, and subsequent Supreme Court orders in the Ashish Agarwal case. - For AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, the approval for issuing notice u/s 148 was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), which is mandatory when reopening is beyond three years, as per Section 151(ii). - Reliance was placed on the decision in Mrs. Chitra Supekar vs. ITO [2023] 149 taxmann.com 26 (Bom) and Eshaan Holding (P.) Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue on these legal grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151,Section 151A,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH: GUWAHATI

Before: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM:

These are the appeals by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 13.08.2025 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1075298081(1), Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Ferosh D Marak ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079595336(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079595623(1) passed u/s 250 of the Act for the AY 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 respectively on the foll

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 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →