Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2017-18, challenging the reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing a notice under Section 148. The primary contention is that the approval for reopening the case beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year was obtained from an incompetent authority as per the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2021.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a notice issued after obtaining approval from an authority (Pr. CIT – 20) which was not competent as per the amended Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the notice under Section 148 was deemed invalid, rendering all subsequent actions void ab initio.
Key Issues
Whether reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years require approval from a specifically designated higher authority as per the amended provisions of Section 151(ii), and if not, whether the notice is invalid.
Sections Cited
148, 151(ii), 254(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 17.03.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. Reassessment is bad in law 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in upholding the Reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 on incorrect sanction.
1.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding reassessment proceedings contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC).
1.3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding reassessment proceedings although the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not contain a valid DIN.
2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”
Rival submissions of both the parties have heard and record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that in the present appeal the assessee has only challenged the validity reopening and notice under section 148. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that case of assessee for AY 2017-18 was reopened beyond the three years from the end of relevant assessment year. As per the amended provisions after amendment by Finance Act 2021, applicable w.e.f. 0104.2021 if the case is reopening is beyond three years from the end of relevant assessment year, the approval of reasons recorded should be approved by Principal Chief Commissioner of Income tax (Pr CCIT) or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. However, the assessing officer obtained approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr CIT), who was not a competent sanctioning authority as per section 151(ii) of amended provision.
The assessing officer was required to obtain approval / sanction from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CCIT). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that copy of notice under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 is placed on record at page no. 24 & 25 of paper book, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the said notice is issued after obtaining prior approval of Pr. CIT – 20, Mumbai on 27.07.2022. The assessing officer was required to obtain sanction/approval from Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that though he has raised issue against non-mentioning Document Identification Number (DIN) of notice under section 148, however, he is pressing such ground of appeal at this stage.
On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue after going through the copy of notice under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 and other material on record submits that he supports the orders of lower authorities.
I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I have also deliberated on various material placed before me and the case laws relied by ld. AR of the assessee. On perusals of record, I find that case of assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 dated 27.07.2022.
Admittedly the case of assessee for AY 2027-18 is reopened after elapsing three years from the end of relevant assessment years. The assessing officer obtained the approval/sanction from Pr. CIT as mentioned in the notice itself.
However, after amendment by way of Finance Act, 2021, as per new regime if the case of assessee is reopened beyond three years from the end of relevant assessment year, the approval of Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General is required. Admittedly, the assessing officer has obtained from Pr. CIT – 20 on 23.07.2022 who is not competent, therefore, notice under section 148 is invalid. Once notice is invalid, therefore, subsequent action initiated on such invalid notice is void ab initio. Thus, the assessee succeed on primary submission of ld. AR of the assessee. Considering the fact that assessee has succeeded on primary submission of ld. AR of the assessee, therefore, adjudication of other issued and on merit has become academic. In the result, ground of appeal of assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.