NISHARANI MAHAPATRA,BERHAMPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, BERHAMPUR, BERHAMPUR

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,कटकन्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH HYBRID HEARING) BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GOPALAN GURUSAMY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.778/CTK/2026 (नििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Nisharani Mahapatra Vs ITO, Ward-1, Berhampur Aska Bishnu Nagar, 2nd Lane, PO: Berhampur, Sub Division Berhampur, Ganjam, Orissa-760001 PAN No. : AONPM 2752 G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee by : Shri Natabar Panda, Advocate राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue by : Shri Ashis Chandra Mohanty, CIT-DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 07/10/2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/10/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed in appeal No.NFAC/2019-20/10434145, dated 06/10/2025 for the assessment year 2020-2021. 2. Shri Natabar Panda, ld. Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashis Chandra Mohanty, ld. CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 229 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for delay. Ld. Sr. DR also did not object to condone the same. Accordingly, considering the contents of the

2 ITA No.778/CTK/2026 affidavit filed by the assessee in regard to condonation of delay which are not found to be false, we condone the delay of 229 days in filing the appeal and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing. 4. Ld. AR has filed additional grounds which reads as under :- “For that the approval/sanction granted by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Bhubaneswar for initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2020-21, was not granted/recorded in the manner and form prescribed under the applicable provisions of law, and, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 pursuant thereto is invalid in law; consequently, the notice issued under section 148 and the reassessment order passed in pursuance thereof are liable to be quashed." 6. That the aforesaid additional ground is a legal ground arising from the assessment/reassessment records and is directly relevant to the validity of the proceedings under section 148 of the Act. 7. That the admission of the aforesaid additional ground would cause no prejudice to the Respondent, as the issue is a legal issue arising from the departmental records and the Respondent would have full opportunity to respond to the same. 8. That it is settled law that an appellate authority has jurisdiction to admit an additional ground, particularly where such ground is a pure question of law and goes to the root of the matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) has held that a question of law arising from the facts which are already on record can be raised before the Tribunal even if the same was not raised before the lower authorities. 9. That in the interest of substantial justice and for proper and effective adjudication of the appeal, the aforesaid additional ground may kindly be admitted and adjudicated upon by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 5. It was the submission of the ld. AR that the additional ground raised by the assessee goes to the root of the matter, therefore, the same may kindly be admitted. In this regard, ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co.

3 ITA No.778/CTK/2026 Ltd. Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC), wherein it is held that a question of law arising from the facts which are already on record can be raised before the Tribunal even if the same was not raised before the lower authorities. 6. A perusal of the additional ground raised by the assessee clearly shows that the assessee is challenging the reopening on account of the approval required u/s.148A of the Act. As the issue goes to the root of the assessment, therefore, the additional grounds raised by the assessee are admitted in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co.(supra). 7. Ld. AR has placed before us the copy of the order sheet notings in respect of the reopening. The notings read as follows :-

4 ITA No.778/CTK/2026

5 ITA No.778/CTK/2026

6 ITA No.778/CTK/2026

7 ITA No.778/CTK/2026

8 ITA No.778/CTK/2026 Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice under section 148. 148A. The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148,— (a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; (b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, [***] by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a); (c) consider the reply of assessee furnished, if any, in response to the show-cause notice referred to in clause (b); (d) decide, on the basis of material available on record including reply of the assessee, whether or not it is a fit case to issue a notice under section 148, by passing an order, with the prior approval of specified authority, within one month from the end of the month in which the reply referred to in clause (c) is received by him, or where no such reply is furnished, within one month from the end of the month in which time or extended time allowed to furnish a reply as per clause (b) expires: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply in a case where,— (a) a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A in the case of the assessee on or after the 1st day of April, 2021; or (b) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized in a search under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A, in the case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, belongs to the assessee; or (c) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any books of

9 ITA No.778/CTK/2026 account or documents, seized in a search under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A, in case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, 2[relate to, the assessee; or (d) the Assessing Officer has received any information under the scheme notified under section 135A pertaining to income chargeable to tax escaping assessment for any assessment year in the case of the assessee.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, specified authority means the specified authority referred to in section 151.] 11. A perusal of the provisions of Section 148A(a) of the Act shows that, once information is available with the AO, then the AO, if he deems necessary, can conduct an enquiry. If such enquiry is deemed necessary by the AO, then a necessary prior approval from the specified authority is required. With this in mind, if we have a look at the notings of the AO dated 28.03.2024, the AO specifies that there is information available with the office through the insight portal under “High Risk CRIU-VRU cases”. The AO further goes on to say that the assessee has given a loan of Rs.5.5 crores to Lumex Resources Pvt. Ltd. and as the assessee has received interest income of Rs.80,95,750/-. The AO mentions that the assessee has not filed her return and, therefore, has taken a stand that the income remains undisclosed. He further goes on to say that therefore he suggests that an income of Rs.6,30,95,750/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of sub-clause (1) of Explanation (1) to Section 148 of the Act. Now, this is an enquiry which has been done by the AO on the information which has been received by him from the insight portal. All information need not lead to the reopening. The information would require verification. It would require enquiry and this

10 ITA No.778/CTK/2026 admittedly have been done partly by the AO. However, the provisions of Section 148A(a) of the Act requires a prior approval. Unfortunately, that approval has not been taken. It has neither been taken from JCIT nor from the Pr.CIT. On this ground, the reopening would become invalid and we hold so. 12. Further, a perusal of the recording dated 28.3.2024 shows that the Assessing Officer has sent the reasons recorded for approval to JCIT. On 29.3.2024, the ld. JCIT has returned back the same for the AO’s request. Again on 29.3.2024, the papers have been forwarded by the ITO, Ward-1, Berhampur to the Addl/JCIT, Range-2, Bhubaneswar. Here what is important is, Berhampur to Bhubaneswar is more than 180 kms. The files have moved more than 180 kms three times in the course of one day. Once it has gone from ITO Ward-1 Berhampur to the JCIT, Range-2, Bhubaneswar and it has again from JCIT, Bhubaneswar to ITO Berhampur and again this has moved from Berhampur to Bhubaneswar. There is no record of such movement of the files. In short, all these have been done only by a click of the computer. No documents have moved, no verification of any document has been done. Further, on 29.3.2024 itself, the ld. JCIT has forwarded his remarks to the Pr. CIT, Bhubaneswar-1. In the said noting of the ld. JCIT, he does not discuss as to what exactly has led to the conclusion being drawn that the amount has escaped assessment. Ld. JCIT substantially talks of the notice having been sent online and the same having not been responded to and that the physical copy was sent and that the RPAD was returned to the Assessing

11 ITA No.778/CTK/2026 Officer as “addressee left”. Again here, the ld. JCIT only refers to information available in the Insight portal. There is no verification of any other information. Admittedly, Lumex Resources and M/s Lumex Resources Pvt. Ltd., PAN and details are known. No verification of the balance sheet and profit and loss account of these two companies have also been done to verify whether they have received this loan from the assessee or whether they have paid the interest to the assessee. In fact, the grounds of the assessee are that the assessee has given only about Rs.1 crore and the assessee has received back Rs.80,95,750/- and not in the nature of interest. The amount of Rs.5,50,00,000/- is not the loan given by the assessee but by her husband. These evidences would very well be available in the balance sheet of M/s. Lumex Resources, if it were examined. A perusal of the notings of the ld. JCIT, in short, is just a cut and paste of a portion of the reasons recorded by the AO. 13. Now, we come to the approval granted by the PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar on 30.3.2024, there though space for signature is available, there is no signature in the order sheet at all. We are live to the provisions of sec. 282A(2) of the I.T.Act, which reads as follows: Authentication of notices and other documents. 282A.(1) Where this Act requires a notice or other document to be issued by any income-tax authority, such notice or other document shall be signed in manuscript by that authority. (2) Every notice or other document to be issued, served or given for the purposes of this Act by any income-tax authority, shall be deemed to be authenticated if the name and office of a designated income-tax authority is printed, stamped or otherwise written thereon. (3) For the purposes of this section, a designated income-tax authority shall mean any income-tax authority authorised by the Board to issue, serve or give such notice or other document after authentication in the manner as provided in sub-section (2).

12 ITA No.778/CTK/2026

For electronic mode, for authentication, it requires the name and office of a designated authority, is printed, stamped or otherwise written thereon. This is conspicuous by it absence in the order sheet produced before us and extracted above. Neither has form under sec.151 for approval produced before us. This being so, it cannot be said that an approval has been granted by the Pr.CIT either. On this ground also the reopening is invalid and the same is liable to be quashed and we do so. 14. Here, it would be worthwhile also to mention here that Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of ITO v. M/s Tia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 468 ITR 5 (Delhi) has categorically also held in paras 12 to 16 that the reasons recorded have not been attached alongwith the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. On this ground, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has quashed the assessment. It must also be mentioned here that Hon’ble Supreme Court has also dismissed the SLP filed by the revenue against the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Tia Enterprises Pvt Ltd (supra) and the same is reported in (2023) 468 ITR 10 (SC). Thus, on all these counts, as the requisite approval, admittedly, have not been taken and there is no order u/s.151 of the Act for granting approval by the concerned authorities and the reasons are not attached with the notices issued, it is held that in the absence of requisite approval, the reopening is bad in law and consequently, the same stands quashed. Thus, the additional grounds filed by the assessee stand allowed. Consequential assessment order also stands quashed.

13 ITA No.778/CTK/2026 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 07/10/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- GOPALAN GURUSAMY GEORGE MATHAN लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER दिनाांक Dated 07/10/2026 RS आदेशकीप्रनतललपपअग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी/ The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent- 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT 4. 5. ववभागीयप्रतततनधि, आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack गार्डफाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावपतप्रतत //True Copy//

(Assistant Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack