INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. AMBALIA HITESH CHHAGANLAL HUF, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1429/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and relying on various judicial precedents, deleted the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer.5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the sanction obtained for initiating reassessment proceedings was from an incompetent authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, as the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the relevant assessment year. This rendered the reassessment proceedings void ab initio and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals without delving into the merits of the addition.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition made during reassessment for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18. The assessee's case was reopened u/s 147 after information from a search, and the AO treated long-term capital gains as bogus, adding it u/s 68 and taxing u/s 115BBE. A legal issue was raised regarding the validity of the reassessment proceedings, as the notice u/s 148 was issued more than three years after the relevant assessment year, requiring sanction from a higher authority (PCCIT/CCIT) under Section 151(ii), but approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) under Section 151(i).

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years from the relevant assessment year are valid if the sanction required under Section 151 is granted by an authority not specified as competent for such cases, thereby making the notice and subsequent proceedings invalid and without jurisdiction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 151,Section 151(i),Section 151(ii),Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DR
Hearing: 23.09.2025Pronounced: 26.09.2025

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →