Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal is against an order related to AY 2016-17. The notice under section 148 was issued on 29.07.2022, with approval from PCIT-10, Delhi. The assessee argued that approval should have been obtained from PCCIT as per the amended section 151(ii) of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was not valid because the approval was not obtained from the specified authority (Principal Chief Commissioner) as mandated by section 151(ii) of the Act, especially since the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
Key Issues
Whether the approval for issuing notice under Section 148, obtained from PCIT instead of PCCIT as per amended Section 151(ii), renders the notice invalid when issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year.
Sections Cited
148, 148A, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR
ORDER
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 21/8/2025 of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi.
Before us, ld. AR submitted that the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, was issued to the assessee dated 29.07.2022 with the approval of ld. PCIT-10, Delhi and the same is placed at pages 36 & 37 of the paper book. Ld. AR submitted that the approval should have been obtained only from PCCIT as per the amended section 151 (ii) of the Act. Since the notice for reassessment was issued on 29.07.2022 for the AY 2016-17, the amended provisions is applicable. In this regard, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 167 taxmann.com 70. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Gupta HUF vs. ACIT in WPC No.6057/2023 order dated 03.03.2025 and also relied on other decisions of coordinate Benches.
On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observe that notice u/s 148 was issued on 25.04.2021. Subsequently, further notices were issued u/s 148A (b) on various dates and on 26.07.2022 order u/s 148A(d) was passed and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 29.7.2022. The relevant copy of the notice is placed on record and before us, ld. AR submitted that for issue of notice u/s 148, the Assessing Officer should have obtained approval from PCCIT as per the provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act. Whereas for initiating the proceedings, the Assessing Officer has obtained the prior approval from PCIT, Delhi-10 which is not as per the provisions of the Act. In this regard, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) for the issue of applicability of the amended Act. Further he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Gupta HUF (supra) wherein the issue raised by the assessee are directly addressed and the same is reproduced below :- 2 | P a g e “5. In cases where reassessment is sought to be commenced after the lapse of three years from the end of the relevant A Y, undisputedly, it would be the Principal Chief Commissioner who would be liable to be recognised as being the competent authority. Viewed in that light, it is apparent that the reassessment action would not sustain.
6. Dealing with an identical question, we had in Abhinav Jindal HUF v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6585 Consequently, and for the aforesaid reasons, we find ourselves unable to sustain the reassessment action on this short score alone.”
Similar view was taken by various coordinate Benches in this regard and ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Durga Agencies Pvt. Ltd. in order dated 27.08.2025 held as under :- “Considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record. We observed that the Notice dated 29.07.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act is not a valid notice, as the approval was not granted by the specified authority i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as mandated u/s 151(ii) We further observe that the impugned notice u/s 148 for AY 2017-18 was issued on 29.07.2022, after obtaining the approval Pr.CIT, Delhi i.e. beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and thus, in terms of sec.151(ii) of the Act, the same was required to be approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no such authority, by Chief Commissioner or Director General. We further observe that in the case of the assessee, the said notice u/s 148 was not issued with the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or any other authority specified u/s 151(ii) of the Act. In this regard, we find force from the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Communist Party of India
3 | P a g e (Marxist) (supra) wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court relying on various judgments decided the issue in favour of the assessee as under :- “18. In view of the above, the order dated 29.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Act is not sustainable. Consequently, the subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order dated 23.05.2023, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, the notice issued under section 13\48 of the Act as well as the assessment order dated 23.05.2023 and the demand raised pursuant thereto, are hereby set aside.”
Respectfully following the above decisions, we are inclined to allow the legal ground raised by the assessee by setting aside the reassessment order.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.