Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed two appeals against CIT(A) orders for AY 2016-17 and 2018-19. Notices under Section 148 were issued for both years. For AY 2016-17, the notice was issued beyond three years, and approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner.
Held
The Tribunal held that for AY 2016-17, since the period was beyond three years, the approval for the Section 148 notice should have been from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General as per Section 151(ii). As the approval was from a lower authority, the notice was jurisdictionally deficient, and the proceedings were quashed ab initio.
Key Issues
Whether reassessment proceedings initiated by notices under Section 148 were valid when the sanction for issuing such notices was not obtained from the prescribed authority under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly for periods exceeding three years.
Sections Cited
148, 151(ii), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
The captioned two appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the respective orders of even dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short), relating to the Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2018-19. for A.Y 2016-17 • The original return of income for the AY 2016-17 was filed on 20.09.2016. • Notice u/s 148 was issued on 20.08.2021 • The period is beyond 3 years. • Section 151(ii), with effect from 01.04.2021, reads as under:-
& 974/Ahd/2025 DCIT Vs. Riddhesh G Bhandari Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 - 2– [Sanction for issue of notice.
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 where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.] • The Assessing Officer (ITO, Ward (4)(1)(1), Ahmedabad) in the notice dated 17.08.2022 at para No.3 clearly mentioned that the notice u/s 148 “is being issued after obtaining prior approval of the Pri. Commissioner of Income-tax-3, accorded on dated 12.08.2022, vide reference No. Pr.CIT- 3/ITO(Tech) /148A/B-203/2022-23/3272”.
A.Y 2018-19 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (ITO, Ward (4)(1)(1), Ahmedabad) in the notice dated 08.04.2022 at para No.3 clearly mentioned that the notice u/s 148 “is being issued after obtaining prior approval of the PCIT, Ahmedabad-3 accorded on date 07.04.2022, vide reference No.10000002888845”.
Owing to the non-approval of the prescribed authority as mentioned u/s 151(ii), the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 is deficient in jurisdiction and hence the proceedings are liable to be quashed ab initio.
In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 18.09.2025.