Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee received interest on enhanced compensation for compulsory land acquisition amounting to Rs. 2,60,05,088/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings for AY 2016-17, considering the interest income taxable. The assessee contended that the notice u/s 148 was bad in law due to improper approval.
Held
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were vitiated because the approval for reopening the case was obtained from the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, as required by Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for cases where more than three years have elapsed. The notice u/s 148A(d) was issued beyond the period of three years from the relevant assessment year.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings are valid when the approval for reopening was obtained from an authority not specified under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for cases beyond the three-year limit.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3), 151, 10(37), 56(2)(viii), 57(iv), 148A(d), 144, 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.10.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17.
2. Grounds raised
by the assessee are as under: On facts and in law.
1. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the assessed income at Rs.1,30,02,544/-.
2. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition u/s 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 57(iv) at Rs.1,30,02,544/- without appreciating that: a. The interest was awarded u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and b. The interest u/s 28 forms part of the compensation awarded u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the compulsory acquisition of rural agricultural land and further a Capital Receipt, and c. The land compulsorily acquired was not a Capital Asset as defined u/s 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore interest awarded u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not exhigible to tax.
3. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in following the decisions of the Non- Jurisdictional High Courts when, the same issue has been decided in the Assessee's favour by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT Pune Bench.
4. The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred also in considering the SLP 'dismissed in limine' by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as Law of Land and decision in the case of CIT, Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 315 ITR 1 (SC) still prevails. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.
3. The assessee has also raised the following additional ground: 1) The notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law since the approval obtained by the learned A.O. is not as per the conditions laid down in section 151 and accordingly, the notice issued u/s 148 and the reasst. order passed u/s 147 be declared null and void. The appellant submits that the additional ground raised is legal in nature and as all the facts are on record, the assessee requests for admission of the above ground.
4. The Learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the above additional ground submitted that the additional ground raised is purely legal in nature which goes to the root of the matter and all the necessary facts are already available on record. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) and in the case of Jute Corporation Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr (1991) 187 ITR 688 submitted that the additional ground raised by the assessee should be admitted.
After hearing both the sides and considering the fact that the additional ground raised by the assessee is purely a legal one and all the material facts are already available on record and no new facts are required to be investigated, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra) and in the case of Jute Corporation Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr (supra), the additional ground raised by the assessee is admitted for adjudication.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year. On the basis of information available that the assessee has received an amount of Rs.2,60,05,088/- as interest on enhanced compensation on compulsory land acquisition, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 27.07.2022 after passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act. Despite number of opportunities granted, neither the assessee filed the return of income nor responded to any of the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and the subsequent reminders. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and determined the income of the assessee at Rs.1,30,02,544/- by observing as under: ―3.7 Conclusion drawn: Firstly, it is concluded that the payment of Rs 2,60,05,088/- is interest on enhanced compensation on compulsory land acquisition. Assessee was asked to submit details of co-owners, but assessee failed to submit information. Assessee was also requested to submit details of cost of acquisition but the assessee failed to submit information. The entire amount is shown in assessee's hands, in Form
26AS Therefore, the entire amount of interest received by the assessee is found to be taxable in assessee's hands, as income from other sources. Secondly, it is pointed out assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 10(37) as the said deduction applies only to capital gains from compensation or enhanced compensation from land acquisition, but not on interest on such compensation. In the present instance, the amount represents interest on enhanced compensation, but the compensation or enhanced compensation itself. Thirdly, reference is made to Section 57 (iv) rws 56(2)(viii). Section 57(iv) gives benefit of 50% deduction on amounts mentioned in Sec 56(2)(viii). Interest on compensation or enhanced compensation is the amount mentioned in Section 56(2)(viii). Therefore, in accordance with the above, 50% of Rs.2,60,05,088 amounting to Rs.1,30,02,544/- is treated as deduction and the balance amount of Rs.1,30,02,544/- is hereby to be treated as income from other sources. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for concealment of income.‖
7. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer.
8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessment year involved in the instant case is 2016-17 and the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021.
Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to para 73 of the order, according to which as per the provisions of section 151(ii) of the new regime where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority for giving approval is Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General.
Referring to paras 80 and 81 of the said order, he drew the attention of the Bench to the following observations:
“80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts ―shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148-A(b).‖ Further, this Court dispensed with the requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under Section 148A(a). Under Section 148A(b), an assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show cause notice. When this Court deemed the Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from the specified authorities under Section 151 for Section 148A(b). It is well established that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142, is not bound by the procedural requirements of law High Court Bar Association v. State of U P (2024) 160 taxmann.com 32/299 Taxman 21 (SC)/(2024) 6 SCC 267.
This Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) directed the assessing officers to ―pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assesses concerned.‖ Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under Section 148 of the new regime ―after following the procedure as required under Section 148-A.‖ Although this Court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under Section 148A(a) and Section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for Section 148A(d) and Section 148. Therefore, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under Section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable.‖
12. Referring to pages 2 to 8 of the paper book, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act on 30.03.2022. Referring to page 9 of the order, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 01.06.2022 in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agrawal in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022. Referring to the proceedings u/s 148A(d) of the Act in consequence of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision dated 04.05.2022, he drew the attention of the Bench to the same, copy of which is placed at pages 13 to 17 of the paper book and submitted that as per para 8 of the said order the same has been passed with prior approval of the Pr.CIT instead of Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. He submitted that as per the provisions of section 151(ii) of the new regime such approval not being in accordance with law, such re-assessment proceedings have to be quashed.
13. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hareshkumar Dungarmal Jain vs. DCIT and Akash Hareshkumar Jain vs. DCIT vide and 1934/PUN/2024, for assessment year 2018-19, order dated 24.02.2025, he submitted that under identical circumstances, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has quashed the re-assessment proceedings.
Referring to the decision of Pune SMC Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Arthbharti nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit vs. ITO vide for assessment year 2018-19, order dated 10.02.2025, he submitted that here also the Tribunal has quashed the re-assessment proceedings on account of improper approval. He accordingly submitted that since 148A(d) order has been approved by the PCIT instead of Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, therefore, the same being in violation of the provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act, such re- assessment proceedings not being in accordance with law, have to be quashed.
The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly submitted that the approval has given properly by the PCIT.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered various decisions cited before us. We find in the instant case the proceedings u/s 148A(d) of the Act in consequence of Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 04.05.2022 for assessment year 2016-17 has been passed on 27.07.2022, the details of which are as under: ―Subject: Proceedings u/s 148A(d) in consequence to Hon'ble SC Order dated 04.05.2022-Order 01. Brief Facts:- The assessee, Shri Chandrakant Vitthal Bhopi (BJDPB7610L) is an Individual/HUF/AOP/Firm/Company. In this case, a notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 was issued on 12.04.2021. In respect of the assessee following information is available in the annual information report Information Code Information Description Value TDS-194A TDS Return - Other Interest Rs 2,60,05,088/- (Section 194A)
Ongoing through office records, it has been found that the assessee has NOT filed return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 and therefore, the income earned out of the transaction as tabulated above had not been disclosed by the assessee pertaining to above mentioned transaction. In view of the above facts, it can be established that the assessee during the relevant year had above said transaction, which had not been disclosed for taxation. In this case, the assessment was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act. 1961 vide order dated 30/03/2022 bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2021- 22/1042024169(1) at an assessed income of Rs.2,60,05,088/-.
2. Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India: The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022 in the case of Union of India & ors Vs. Ashish Agarwal and others dated 04-05-2022. As per para 10 of the above decision, Hon'ble Apex Court has directed to treat all the notices issued u/s 148 after 01-04-2021 (as per provisions of section 148 prior to 31-03-2021) as notice u/s 148A(b) and directed to provide the information and material relied upon by the revenue to the assessee for issue of such notice, within 30 days from the date of order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India i.e. 04- 05-2022 and to provide two weeks' time to file the reply by the respective assessee to the AO and thereafter to pass the order u/s 148A(d) by the concerned AO to decide whether it is fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 or not.
Decision of jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court: Subsequent to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune and others in WP No. 5293 of 2022 vide order dated 05.05.2022 has categorically ordered that wherever the assessment order has been passed those assessment order will stand quashed and set aside. So also, the consequent orders/notices. The court has further directed that the revenue may restart the process as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Information and material shared with the assessee: - Following the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dt. 04.05.2022 and directions of jurisdictional Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune and others in WP No. 5293 of 2022 vide order dated 05.05.2022 as mentioned above and considering the CBDT Instruction No.01/2022 dated 11/05/2022 and ITBA step-by step document No.1 dated 12-05- 2022 related to implementation of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the information and the material was provided to the assessee on 01/06/2022 and time of two weeks was provided to the assessee for submitting the response/reply. The time was given upto 20/06/2022 for filing the response/reply
5. Reply of the assessee: In this case, the assessee vide its submission dated 20.06.2022 through e- proceedings, stated as under (reproduced) "Under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. Capital Gains on compensation received on compulsory acquisition of urban agricultural land is exempt from tax. The learned assessing officer is not correct while making assessment without properly taken into consideration of the provision of section 10(37) of the income Tax Act, 1961. There are 13 individuals involved, he should consider my share of 1/13th being Rs 20,00,391.00 and according assess my income tax liability thereon. The TDS deducted is under wrong section. I have already went for appeal. Your applicants pray for leave to add, amend, alter, delete or modify any of the above ground" Along with the above submission the assessee furnished copy of bank pass book. 06. Finding of the AO: - In this case the assessee the assessee during the relevant period has received interest of Rs.2,60,05,088/-, since the assessee has not filed his return of income for the relevant period of A.Y. 2016-17 the income was not disclosed for taxation and thus the same has escaped assessment. `During the assessment proceedings, the assessee just two days before the time barring date of finalising the assessment furnished partial submission. As per the submission the assessee furnished copy of Bank Pass book, Form 16A, copy of Award under section 11 of Land acquisition Act, 1894 dated 25.08.1989. As per the submission the assessee claimed that there are 13 parties involved in the transaction and also claimed that it is exempt u/s 10(37). During the assessment proceedings, the submission had been perused, it was seen that as per the TDS certificate in Form 16A, the amount of payment has been paid/credited in the name of the assessee Shri. Chandrakant Vithal Bhopi & others, and the entire TDS has been deducted under the PAN of the assessee Shri Chandrakant Vithal Bhopi under section 184A which represents interest other than Interest on securities. The assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence and confirmation from the other members/co-owners about receipt of payment to the extent of their share of compensation/enhanced compensation or the receipt of Interest payment. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to submit any details which explains the distribution of interest income amongst the co-owners, the assessee also failed to furnish the PAN of the Co- owners and hence, this office could not verify the return of income if filed by the co-owners declaring the interest Income to the extent of their individual shares. In the present proceedings also, it is seen that the assessee has not furnished documentary evidence to substantiate his claim made in his submission, barring furnishing of his copy of bank pass book, the assessee has not furnished any documentary proof to justify that the distribution of interest income with the co-owners.
7. In view of the above discussed facts, the information in possession of the undersigned in this case suggests escapement of assessment. Therefore, this is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
This order is passed with prior approval of Pr. CIT-1, Thane vide Reference number No.THN/Pr. CIT-1/148/2022-23/1547 dated 25/07/2022.‖
A perusal of the above would show that the same has been passed by taking approval from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT or CCIT or PDGIT or DGIT.
We find an identical issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Hareshkumar Dungarmal Jain vs. DCIT (supra) where the Tribunal after considering the various decisions has observed as under: ―11. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and 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 clauses 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the order dated 13.04.2022 passed under clause (d) of section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read as under: ―GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR. To HARESHKUMAR DUNGARMAL JAIN 39 SHIVAJI PARK, E WARD NEAR CBS KOLHAPUR 416003, Maharashtra India PAN: AY Dated DIN & Notice No: AAHPH2287D 2018-19 13/04/2022 TBA/AST/F/148A/2022- 23/1042737900(1)
Name of the assessee HARESHKUMAR DUNGARMAL JAIN Address of the assessee 39 SHIVAJI PARK, E WARD NEAR CBS KOLHAPUR 416003, Maharashtra India Resident Not Ordinarily Resident Non-Resident Date of order 13/04/2022 Specified authority approval Name PCIT, Pune-1 Reference No. 100000029101926 Date Order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Income-tax Act.1961 1. Brief Details of the Assessee: The assessee Harishkumar Dungarmal Jain has filed return of income for the A Y 2018-19 in ITR-3 on 26/09/2018 declaring total income at Rs.30,63,633/-. The assessee is a beneficiary of LTC gain/loss or STC Gain/loss and has received Rs.23,39,899/- during the A.Y 2018-19.
Brief details of information collected/received by the AO: In this case the information is received through Insight portal, in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the CBDT (Board). The Information of transaction done by the assessee during AY 2018-19 is as under- The assessee is a beneficiary of LTC gain/loss or STC Gain/loss and has received Rs.28,39,899/- during the A.Y 2018-19. 3……….. 3.1……... 04……… 05……..
6. It is evident that income of Rs.23,39,899/- or more has escaped assessment for year under consideration within the meaning of sec. 147 read with provision & explanation to the said section and it is evident that this is a fit case made out for issue of notice u/s 148 r.w.s 151 of the IT Act, 1961 for the AY 2018-19 to assess income in the case.
As this case is within 3 years, from the end of the assessment under consideration the approval is sought from specified authority u/s 151 i.e. Pr.CIT-1, Pune. Therefore, an approval of the PCIT, Pune-1 to re-open the assessment u/s 147 of the Act, is sought u/s 148A(d) and subsequent issue of notice u/s 148 for AY 2018-19 in the present case, if approved. JAGDISH SHANKAR JAGTAP CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR‖
A perusal of the above shows that the order under clause (d) of section 148A of the Act was passed on 13.04.2022 after obtaining the approval of the PCIT, Pune. Since the assessment year involved is assessment year 2018-19 and the notice u/s 148 was issued on 13.04.2022 it has to be seen as to who is the competent authority from whom the approval has to be obtained.
We find the provisions of section 151 of the Act read as under: ―151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be,— (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year: Provided……‖ 14. A perusal of the above provisions clearly shows that w.e.f. 01.04.2021 the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General is the competent authority for giving sanction if more than 3 years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. 15. We find an identical issue had come up before the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Davos International Fund vs. ACIT (supra). We find the Tribunal after considering various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has observed as under: ―7. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. In assessee's case the 148A notice for AY 2017-18 was issued on 12.03.2022 and the order disposing the objections of the assessee was passed on 04.04.2022 under section 148A(d) of the Act. The AO issued notice under section 148 dated 04.04.2022. On perusal of the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and 148 (page 42 to 46 and 47 of PB) we notice that the impugned notices are issued after obtaining the prior approval of CIT (IT), Mumbai-2. The case of the revenue is that the notice dated 04.04.2022 is issued within three years since as per the 5th proviso to section 149, the AO has got additional 9 days for issue of notice under section 148 i.e. upto 09.04.2022. since the extended time of 9 days i.e. from 22.03.2022 to 31.03.2022 was given to the assessee. Therefore, it is argued by the revenue that notice issued on 04.04.2022 is within period of three years and the approval has been correctly obtained by the authority as specified in section 151(i) of the Act. The assessee is contending that the 5th proviso to section 149 under which the revenue is taking cover is inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and therefore not applicable to assessee's case. In this regard, we notice that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court iIn the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd (supra) has held that – ―1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 19th March 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice both dated 7th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. One of the grounds raised
is that the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is invalid inasmuch as the sanction has been admittedly issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT") and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT").
2. Petitioner's request for a copy of the sanction has also been denied. Even in the affidavit in reply, the Department is refusing to give the sanction which makes us wonder what is the national secret involved in that, that Assessee is being refused what he is rightfully entitled to receive from the Department. In the affidavit in reply, the stand taken by the Revenue is it will be made available during the re- assessment proceeding.
3. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai
5. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-19 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 has been inserted only with effect from 1" April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand.
4. In this circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 under section 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside.‖
8. Similar view is held by the jurisdictional High Court also in other cases as listed herein above. In the decision of the Vodafone Idea (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has given a specific finding that the proviso to section 151 extending the time limit as per the third, fourth or fifth proviso to section 149 is not applicable for AY 2018-19 as the same is inserted only w.e.f. 01.04.2023. When we apply the said ratio to assessee's case, in our considered view, the claim of the revenue that the period of 3 years expires only on 09.04.2022 is not correct and that revenue cannot take shelter under the proviso to section 151 which came into effect only from 01.04.2023. Accordingly the notice issued on 04.04.2022 by the AO is issuedbeyond three years and therefore the approval should have been obtained by the authorities as specified under section 151(ii) Principle Chief Commission. As already stated the approval in assessee's case is obtained from CIT(IT) and therefore we are inclined to agree with the contention of the assessee that the notice under section 148 has been issued without obtaining the approval from the correct authority as specified under section 151. Respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court we hold that the notice issued by the AO under section 148 without obtaining approval from correct appropriate authority is invalid and the assessment done under section 147 r.w.s. 144(13) of the Act is liable to be quashed.
Since we have adjudicated the legal contentions raised through additional ground in favour of the assessee, the grounds raised
on merits have become academic and not warranting any specific adjudication.‖
16. Since in the instant case the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued on 13.04.2022 which is beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, the competent authority who should have given sanction for reopening proceedings is the Principal Chief Commissioner / Principal Director General. However, in the instant case, the same has been approved by the PCIT-1, Pune. Therefore, such approval being not in accordance with law, is invalid and consequently, the entire re-assessment proceedings are vitiated. We, therefore, quash the re-assessment proceedings.
17. Since the assessee succeeds on this preliminary issue, the other grounds challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings and the grounds challenging the addition on merit are not being adjudicated being academic in nature.‖
Since the facts of the instant case are identical to the facts in the case of Hareshkumar Dungarmal Jain vs. DCIT (supra), therefore, respectfully following the same, we hold that since in the instant case notice u/s 148A(d) of the Act has been issued on 27.07.2022 which is beyond the period of three years from the relevant assessment year and the approval has been granted by the PCIT for reopening of the case instead of Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, therefore, such approval being not in accordance with law, we hold that the entire re-assessment proceedings are vitiated. We, therefore, quash the re-assessment proceedings.
Since the assessee succeeds on this legal ground, the other grounds challenging the addition on merit are not being adjudicate being academic in nature.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 7th May, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 7th May, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 05.05.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 06.05.2025 Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the 3 JM/AM Second Member Draft discussed/approved by Second 4 AM/AM Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to the Head 9 Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order