TARUN KUMAR SAHU,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAIPUR

At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 22 days. Explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation, the assessee had filed an “affidavit”, dated 22.10.2026 as well as condonation application.

I have carefully considered the contents of the condonation application a/w. affidavit and it is observed that there is no material/evidence on record filed by the Revenue to suggest malafide or deliberate conduct of the assessee for causing such delay. Further, contents of the condonation application and affidavit also do not spell out any deliberate conduct of the assessee for causing the said delay. Respectfully considering the various judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania

The contention in law as assailed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), A.Y.2016-17 is dated 21.03.2023 which, therefore, was issued beyond the period of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and as per the dictate of law enshrined in Section 151(ii) of the Act, the competent authority for granting approval is Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. But in the present case of the assessee, approval has been obtained from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur. In fact, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstrated through notice as well as copy of the approval wherein, at Column 21, Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is referred to as the specified authority, whereas, as evident from Column 22 of the approval, approving authority is the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that it has been held in various decisions that the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to grant approval u/s.151 of the Act is expressly contingent

Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the findings of the A.O. He conceded to the fact as enshrined in the approval at Column 21 wherein specified authority is mentioned as the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax whereas the approval has been given by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur as per Column No.22 of the approval, hence, there is violation of Section 151(ii) of the Act since notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued beyond the period of 3 years from end of the relevant assessment year.

Having heard the submissions of the parties herein, admittedly, there is Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh & Chhattisgarh, having seat of office at Bhopal. That as per the CBDT Notification No.S.O.2813(E)[No.56/2014], dated 03.11.2014, the hierarchy of the Income Tax Authorities is explained where the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is the superior authority than the Chief

That since the office of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is present in the state of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and since notice u/s. 148 of the Act had been issued beyond the period of 3 years as per Section 151(ii) of the Act, the specified authority is the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for granting approval. I find that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the ITAT, Raipur, SMC Bench in the case of Leela Devi Jain Vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.641/RPR/2025, dated 15.06.2026, A.Y.2015- 16 observing as follows: “4. As per Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), the approval has to be given by the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and if he is not there, then only the role of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax comes into play. However, the fact of the matter is herein that the office of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is present in the State of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. This is the exact jurisdiction as enshrined by the Board for the purpose of Income Tax Act, and therefore, one cannot say there is no Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for Chhattisgarh since though seat of office of Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is in Madhya Pradesh, however, his jurisdiction extends also to the State of Chhattisgarh. The Ld. Sr. DR could not refute these facts. She only banked upon the clarification in the memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2026. However, these clarifications cannot supersede the dictate, the authority of the statute i.e. Section 151(ii) of the Act, hence, submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR are sans any merit. 5. The jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to grant approval u/s. 151 of the Act is expressly contingent upon the absence of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. In this case, the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax having jurisdiction over Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh is duly constituted and notified within the meaning of Section 2(34A) read with section 117 of the Act. Therefore there exist no condition precedent in the present case for the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to exercise jurisdiction as per

Further, I find that similar issue has been dealt with by this Bench in the cases of DCIT-1(1), Raipur Vs. Avani Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos.88 to 91/RPR/2025, A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2018-19, dated 06.08.2026 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue observing as follows: “50. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the only issue to be decided in the appeal as per grounds raised in the application under Rule 27 is that the approval has been obtained from the PCIT instead of the specified authority i.e. the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General which is in violation of clause (ii) of section 151. We find the assessment year involved is assessment year 2017-18 and the Assessing Officer in the instant case has issued the notice u/s 148 on 15.07.2022 by obtaining approval from the PCIT-1, Raipur. We find when the assessee challenged the approval obtained from the PCIT instead of the specified authority i.e. the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee by observing s under: “7.6 Ground No.7: the appellant sought to introduce a new ground of appeal regarding the "Specified Authority” in this case. It is relevant to state that in

That upon examination of facts and circumstances in this case and as per the aforesaid judicial precedents, on the same parity of reasoning, it is held that the approval granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is in clear violation of the statutory provisions. Therefore,

Rest all other grounds stand academic only.

That as per above terms, appeal of the assessee is allowed.