PAPAIAH ARJUN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-1,, HOSUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3457/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 October 2026AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice dated 05.04.2022, issued by the AO under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The reasoning was that the notice was issued beyond three years from the relevant assessment year, and the approval for reopening was obtained from the PCIT, Coimbatore-1, instead of the Pr. CCIT, which is the competent authority in such cases. The Tribunal relied on its own order in the case of Thambiran Subbiah Subramanian v. ITO (ITA No. 1713/Chny/2026, dated 07.08.2026), which was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Consequently, the reassessment made based on the invalid notice was quashed. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, and the appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Papaiah Arjun, filed an appeal against the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) had issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 05.04.2022, to reopen the assessment. The assessee contended that this notice was invalid because the approval for reopening, obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Coimbatore-1, was not from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CCIT), as required for reopening beyond three years. The revenue opposed this contention. The Tribunal noted that the notice was issued beyond three years and the approval was obtained from the PCIT instead of the Pr. CCIT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 05.04.2022 issued by the AO under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is invalid for want of proper approval from the competent authority, thereby rendering the consequential reassessment proceedings void? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148, issued beyond three years, required approval from the Pr. CCIT. Since approval was obtained from the PCIT, the notice is invalid, and the consequential proceedings should be quashed. The assessee relied on Tribunal orders at pages 16 to 61 of the paper book. Revenue's Contention: The revenue opposed the assessee's argument.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A.No.3457/Chny/2026
ITA No. 1713/Chny/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश /O R D E RJ PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

At the outset, it is noted that the notice dated 05.04.2022 issued by the AO under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) is invalid on account of approval having been obtained from the PCIT, Coimbatore-1, instead of the Pr. CCIT.

2 ITA No. 3457/Chny/2026 3. The Ld. AR, Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate, submitted that the AO was required to obtain approval from the Pr. CCIT, as the assessment was reopened by issuing a notice dated 05.04.2022 under Section 148 of the Act beyond three years. He referred to orders of this Tribunal at pages 16 to 61 of the paper book. He argued that the issue is covered by the orders of this Tribunal and prayed to hold the notice dated 05.04.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act as invalid and to quash the consequential proceedings.

4.

The Ld. DR, Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT, opposed the same.

5.

On perusal of the order of this Tribunal in the case of Thambiran Subbiah Subramanian v. ITO in ITA No. 1713/Chny/2026, dated 07.08.2026, this Tribunal held that the notice issued by the AO under Section 148 of the Act was invalid as there was no approval from the competent authority. Further, the said order was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide order dated 12.06.2026, which is at page No. 61 of the paper book. On careful reading of the said decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, it held that there was no error or infirmity in the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and dismissed the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue.

6.

In the present case, admittedly, the notice dated 05.04.2022 issued by the AO under Section 148 of the Act, which is at page No. 15 of the paper book, was issued beyond three years and approval was obtained from the PCIT instead of the Pr. CCIT. Therefore, the said notice is invalid and, consequently, the reassessment made thereon fails. Thus, we hold that the reassessment made thereon is quashed and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

3 ITA No. 3457/Chny/2026 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 13th October, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (S. PADMAVATHY) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Chennai, Dated: 13.10.2026 MM आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant, 2.��थ�/ Respondent, 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR & 5. गाड�फाईल/GF.

MANISH Digitally signed by MANISH MISHRA MISHRA Date: 2026.10.14 12:10:24 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →