NAYANABEN VIJAYKUMAR LAKUM ,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(8), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the sanction for issuing the notice u/s.148 was granted by the Principal Commissioner, which is not in accordance with Section 151 of the Act, as more than 3 years had elapsed from the end of the Assessment Year. Therefore, the notice and subsequent proceedings were treated as null and void.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) upholding the reopening of assessment. The notice under Section 148 was issued on 29.07.2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was valid when the sanction for issuing the notice was not in accordance with Section 151 of the Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:
The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding reopen of assessment u/s.147 rws 144 of the Act. Vithal L Boria Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– 2. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts appeal dismissing only on limitation grounds without considering the merits. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts upholding reopening of assessment u/s.147 rws 144 which was time barred. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding validity of notice issued u/s.148 which was issued manually and without DIN. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts without given any further opportunity being heard.
In the appeal pertaining to the Assessment Year 2018-19, the notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued on 29.07.2022. As per the provisions of section 151 of the Act, the sanction of issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act has to be by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General if more than 3 years have elapsed from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. Since the approval has been given by the Principal Commissioner in this case, the fact of which has not been disputed by the Revenue, we hold that notice issued by the Revenue is initiated, and hence the subsequent proceedings are hereby treated as null and void.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
