Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order that arose from a reassessment initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
Held
The Tribunal held that the approval for initiating reassessment proceedings beyond three years was not obtained from the competent authority as required by Section 151 of the Act, considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. This statutory violation resulted in jurisdictional error.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years were valid without proper approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as per Section 151 of the Act.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 148, 148A, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI
Before: Ms. MADHUMITA ROY
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gopi Kishan Makharia, Vs ITO-1, Shree Saraswati Spinning Mills, Bhiwani, Birla Colony, Tosham Road, Haryana. Bhiwani, Haryana. PAN: ABHPM8102F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.S. Nagar, CA Revenue by : Shri Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 ORDER PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.10.2025 issued by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. AO’) under Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Approval for initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act beyond three years from the date of expiry of the relevant assessment year ought to have been granted by the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and in the instant case, since the same has been obtained from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessment proceedings is suffered by the jurisdictional error and, therefore, liable to be quashed as the prayer made by the Ld. Counsel Mr. S.S. Nagar appearing for the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on the record. The assessee was issued notice under Section 148 of the Act appearing at page 1 of the paper book filed before us. Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 25.05.2022 and the order under Section 148A(d) was passed on 29.07.2022. These two notices were issued pursuant to the new regime and further in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal, reported in 444 ITR 1 and, therefore, the Ld. Assessing Officer was required to obtain approval under Section 151 of the Act under the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act or issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. In this regard, Ld. Counsel has drawn our attention to the relevant observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), wherein the procedure to be followed particularly the approval required to be taken for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act has been specified in para 73. The Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2017-18 by issuing notice on 05.04.2021 or after notice under Section 148 dated 30.07.2022 which is admittedly more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. We find that the approval was taken finally from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak on 29.07.2022 as appearing from page 12 of the paper book being the notice issued under Section 148 dated 30.07.2022. As per the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra), since the reassessment has been made after elapse of more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval under Section 151(ii) is, therefore, required to be taken from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Principal Director General of Income Tax or the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and not the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as has been done in the instant case. Thus, considering the entire aspect of the matter, the approval is found to have suffered from statutory violation and the entire proceedings has suffered jurisdictional error and, therefore, quashed.