JAGANMOHAN REDDY AGARALA,TIRUPATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), TIRUPATI

At the outset, there is a delay of 47 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed petition for condonation of delay which is supported by a detailed affidavit as well as medical record of the assessee. The learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee has submitted that during the year 2023 assessee developed CDS prolonged health problems and was suffering from Fascicular Ventricular Tachycardia (Fascicular VT), Myocarditis, TB Lymphadenitis, Type-II Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension. The assessee was hospitalized for treatment of multiple diseases and undergoing the treatment for a long time. The learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee has thus submitted that due to these serious health conditions the assessee had to frequent hospitalization and medical treatment, the assessee had to leave Tirupati and settled down in Hyderabad with his in laws and therefore, the assessee could not receive the notice issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). Only when the assessee received a telephonic call from the department regarding the collection/recovery of the outstanding demand in the month of July 2026, the assessee verified the status of the matter and found that the impugned order was passed by the learned CIT(A) on 05.03.2026. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee has submitted that due to serious health problems and undergoing treatment, the assessee could not file the appeal within the period of limitation. He has thus pleaded to condone the delay of 37 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the condonation of delay.

We have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the reasons explained by the assessee in the affidavit which is reproduced as under:

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

The assessee has also filed a petition for admission of additional grounds as the ground nos.2 and 3 of the grounds of appeal are raised for the first time before the Tribunal.

Since the assessee has raised a legal issue in the additional ground therefore, we first take-up the additional ground raised by the assessee for admission as well as adjudication.

The learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee has submitted that the issue raised in additional grounds is purely legal in nature and does not require any verification or fresh investigation into the facts or record but, the same can be adjudicated on the basis of facts and material available on record. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC).

On the other hand, the learned DR has objected to the admission of the additional ground and submitted that the assessee had not raised these grounds either during assessment proceedings or during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) and therefore, the additional grounds raised by the assessee should not be admitted at this stage.

Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal of the additional ground raised by the assessee, we find that the issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground is challenging the validity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 without obtaining the prior approval from the Specified Authority as per the amended provisions of sec.151 of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961. This issue is purely legal in nature and for adjudication of the same no fresh investigation of fact or record is required and therefore, the same can be adjudicated on the basis of the undisputed facts on record. Accordingly, by following the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in the case of National Thermal Power Co. vs. CIT (supra), the additional ground raised by the assessee is admitted for adjudication.

On the merits of the additional grounds, the learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/sec.148 of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 on 07.04.2022 which is after 03 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration and therefore, the competent/specified authority for granting prior approval u/sec.151 of the Act is PCCIT/DGIT but the Assessing Officer has taken prior approval of Pr. CIT. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee has submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act is not valid when the approval was not taken from the specified authority and consequently, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act is invalid and liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal dated 09.10.2026 in the case of Amudala Veeranna vs. ITO, Ward-1, Adoni in ITA.Nos.1132 & 1133/Hyd./2026.

On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/sec.148A(b) of the Act on 21.03.2022 which is within 03 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration and therefore, the approval taken by the Assessing Officer from the PCIT is valid. He has further submitted that the time granted by the Assessing Officer to the assessee for filing the reply in response to the notice u/sec.148A(b) of the Act shall be excluded for the purpose of period of 03 years while considering the approval from the specified authority u/sec.151 of the Act. He has thus submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act dated 07.04.2022 is valid if the period of 07 days allowed by the Assessing Officer to the assessee to file the reply is excluded.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act on 07.04.2022 which reads as under:

The notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act is undisputedly beyond 03 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration and consequently, the Specified Authority for granting the approval u/sec.151 of the Act is the Pr. CCIT/DGIT whereas the Assessing Officer has taken the approval from the PCIT, Tirupati as stated in Para no.3 of the notice itself. Hence, the notice was issued by the Assessing Officer without valid approval u/sec.151 of the Act. An identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in a series of decisions including in the case of Shri Minji Kiran Kumar Goud, Kurnool vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nandyal (supra) as relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in Para nos.9 to 14 are as under:

On perusal of the above, it is evident that the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 11.04.2022, which is after expiry of the period of three years from the end of the assessment year 2018-19. It is also evident that the notice under section 148 of the Act have been issued after taking approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. In such a situation, the statutory requirement under section 151(ii) of the Act mandates that sanction must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, as the case may be. In the present case, however, the approval was obtained by the Ld. AO only from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, who is not the competent authority specified under section 151(ii) of the Act for the purpose of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act beyond three years. We have also gone through the para no. 10 to 17 of the order of this Tribunal in the case of Konda Giri Goud Vs. ITO (Supra), which is to the following effect:

On perusal of above, we find that, this Tribunal relying on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (International Taxation) Vs. LinkedIn Singapore Pte Ltd (2025) 180 Taxman 158 (SC) and the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Deloitte Consulting India Private Limited (Supra) has held that a notice issued under section 148 of the Act without obtaining prior approval from the prescribed authority is not sustainable in law and the consequent reassessment order is liable to be quashed. The ratio decidendi of the aforesaid decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

Further, we are unable to accept the contention of the Ld. DR based on newly inserted section 292BC of the Act. We have carefully examined the provisions of section 292BC of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2026 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2021, which is to the following effect:

A plain reading of the provisions of newly inserted section 292BC of the Act shows that it protects approvals from challenge on account of insufficiency of reasons recorded or defects in the form, manner of authentication or communication of such approval, including cases where approval has been granted electronically. However, the defect involved in the present case is not a defect relating to the form, manner, authentication or communication of approval. The defect relates to the competence of the authority granting such approval. In the present case, approval has been granted by an authority who is not empowered under section 151(ii) of the Act to grant such approval. Such a defect goes to the root of the assumption of jurisdiction and is not cured by section 292BC of the Act. Accordingly, we reject the contention advanced by the Ld. DR. 14. Therefore, following the aforesaid binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Court and this Tribunal and in view of the clear statutory requirement under section 151(ii) of the Act, we hold that the notice issued by the Ld. A.O under section 148 of the Act on 11.04.2022 without obtaining the approval of the prescribed authority is invalid and void. Consequently, the reassessment order passed by the Ld. AO under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 28.02.2024 is also unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed.

Accordingly, to main the rule of consistency and by following the Judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Deloitte Consulting India Private Limited vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (supra) as well as earlier decision of

Thus, this Tribunal has taken a consistent view by following the Judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Deloitte Consulting India Private Limited vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (supra) and by following the earlier decision of this Tribunal, we hold that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act dated 07.04.2022 after 03 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration without approval of the Specified Authority is invalid and the same is quashed.

Since we have quashed the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act, which in turn, vitiates the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the other grounds raised by the assessee become infructuous. 16. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.