BREEZ BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 5(1), DELHI

ITA 376/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 October 2026AY 2017-189 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is bad in law and consequently invalid. The reasoning was based on the admitted fact that more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, necessitating sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner or equivalent authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. The approval obtained from the JCIT, Delhi, for issuing the notice under Section 148 on 28.07.2022 was not in accordance with law. The Tribunal respectfully followed the Supreme Court decision in Rajeev Bansal (supra), which clarifies the specified authorities for granting sanction under Section 151 based on the time elapsed from the end of the assessment year and the amount of income escaping assessment. The ratio decidendi is that a notice under Section 148 issued without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority as prescribed by Section 151 is invalid. Consequently, the assessment order passed pursuant to the invalid notice was also quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Breez Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 23.10.2017. Reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147 based on information regarding non-deduction of TDS on External Development Charges (EDC) paid to HUDA. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed for being delayed by 4 days, with the CIT(A) refusing to condone the delay. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT, seeking condonation of 81 days delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT, in its order dated 09.10.2026, condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is bad in law due to improper sanction under Section 151 of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was bad in law because the approval for reassessment was obtained from the Joint Commissioner (JCIT), Range-4, Delhi, instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) or equivalent authority, as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act, given that more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and a co-ordinate bench decision in DCIT Vs. Rudra Buildwell Homes (P.) Ltd. (2025) 178 taxmann.com 55 (Del. Trib.). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities and did not submit anything specific regarding the approval being issued by an incompetent authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 147,Section 151,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Hearing: 15.07.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.08.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein the appeal has been dismissed while refusing condonation of delay of 4 days in filing the appeal by the assessee/appellant.

2.

The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 81 days in filing the present appeal. The contents of the application are reproduced as under:

2 Breez Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.

3 Breez Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd.

3.

We have considered the contents of t

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 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →