SRI. BILIGIRIRANGANATHSWAMY MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ,CHAMARAJANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , CHAMARAJANAGAR

Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President: 1. Captioned appeal is filed by Sri Biligiriranganathswamy Multi-Purpose Co- operative Society for the A.Y. 2018-19 against the Appellate Order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (“the Ld.CIT(A)”) dated 04.03.2025 wherein the assessment order dated 02.03.2024

2
Sri Biligiriranganathswamy
Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society
2
passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi
(“the Ld.AO”) under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”)was dismissed for non-prosecution, for the reason that Ld. AO was issued notices on four times but no response was received.
2. Brief facts of the case shows that, assessee is a Multi- purpose Co-operative Society wherein the Risk
Management Strategy flagged issue that assessee has deposited cash in its current account with Union
Bank of India of Rs.1,50,000/- and further cash withdrawal from the same bank of Rs.6,09,87,000/-, assessee has not filed any return of income.
Therefore, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 06.04.2022 including the show cause notice was issued by the Ld. AO, however no response was received. Ld. AO has noted “8” instances where the notices are served but no response was received.
Accordingly, to verify the genuineness of the 3
Sri Biligiriranganathswamy
Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society
3
transaction notice under section 133(6) of the Act dated 07.07.2023 was issued to the Union Bank of India for the bank statements. It was found that the assessee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,03,29,000/- and deposited cash of Rs.50,000/-.
Further, it was verified that the total credits deposits are Rs.2,31,16,741/- and accordingly the same was added as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act by an assessment order passed under section 147
r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by order dated
02.03.2024. 3. Against this order, assessee preferred an appeal before
Ld.CIT(A) wherein the Ld.CIT(A) also issued four notices but no response was submitted and therefore he dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal and did not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.AO.

4
Sri Biligiriranganathswamy
Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society
4
4. Assessee,aggrieved with the above order is in appeal before us.
5. The assessee challenged the fact that notice issued for the A.Y. 2018-19 is not proper as the approval is taken from the wrong Authority and therefore on this ground itself the order deserves to be quashed. To support his contention, he referred to the notice issued under section 148A of the Act dated
21.03.2022 wherein the approval was taken by the PCIT, Bengaluru-3 this is apparent as per Paragraph
4 of the order. He further referred to the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act wherein it is specifically stated that approval of PCIT, Bengaluru-3
was obtained on 05.04.2022. He submits that in the notice under section 148 of the Act dated 06.04.2022
in Paragraph No. 3 it is specifically stated that approval of PCIT, Bengaluru-3, was obtained on 05.04.2022. He submits that the reopening has been made after three years and therefore the approval

5
Sri Biligiriranganathswamy
Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society
5
should have been taken not by the Principal
Commissioner of Income
Taxbut of the Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax (“CCIT”). He submitted that the provisions of section 151 of the Act specificallysay that the sanction for issue of notice should have been obtained under clause(ii) to section 151 of the Act. He further relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pacific
Exports in W.P.No.17243 of 2023 and Chitra Supekar
[2023] 149 taxmann.com 26. 6. Ld.
Departmental
Representative vehemently supported the order of the Ld. Lower Authorities and submitted that assessee has not produced any details before the Ld. Lower Authorities and therefore the orders have been passed in accordance with law. It was further submitted that now the assessee is raising the juri ictional issue which he should not have raised at this stage.

6
Sri Biligiriranganathswamy
Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society
6
7. In view of the above facts, the bench granted time to the Ld.DR of ten days to submit that the approval granted by the PCIT, Bengaluru-3 is correct. Till to date, no such information was submitted.
8. As the facts available on record before us are so glaring that there is no need to restore the issue back to the lower authorities.
9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the order of the Ld. Lower Authorities. In fact, the issue here is that assessee did not file its return of income for the A.Y.2018-19, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 06.04.2022. According to the copies of the notices submitted by the Ld.Authorized
Representative, the prior approval was obtained from the PCIT, Bengaluru-3 on 05.04.2022. According to the provisions of section 151 of the Act, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval should

7
Sri Biligiriranganathswamy
Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society
7
have been taken from the Principal Commissioner of Principal Director or Commissioner of Director. In any other case, i.e.,if the time elapses are more than three years, approval should have been obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director
General or Chief Commissioner or Director General etc. In this case admittedly three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.
Therefore, for the A.Y. 2018-19, if thenotice is issued on 06.04.2022, naturally the prior approval should have been obtained from Principal
Chief
Commissioner under section 151(ii) of the Act. In this case, the approval is of PCIT, Bengaluru-3. This is evident from the various notices placed before us.
Therefore, there is no proper approval obtained by the Ld. AO before reopening the case of the assessee. In view of the above facts, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO cannot be upheld but deserves to be quashed. The decisions relied on by the Ld.
Authorized Representative are also on this issue.

8
Sri Biligiriranganathswamy
Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society
8
Accordingly, we quash the assessment order passed as no proper approval for the reopening of the assessment has been obtained in terms of the provisions of section 151 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed.
10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28th July 2025. (KESHAV DUBEY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER (PRASHANT MAHARISHI)
VICE PRESIDENT
Bangalore; Dated: 28th July 2025

Giridhar, Sr.PS
Copy to:
1. The Applicant.
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A) Concerned.
4. The DCIT concerned.
5. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Bangalore.

Asst.