Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) dismissing their appeal against an assessment order. The assessment order included additions under sections 68 and 69C of the Act for unexplained cash credit and expenditure, respectively. The assessee's primary contention was that the notice under section 148 was issued without proper approval.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was invalid because the approval for its issuance was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner or other specified authority as required by Section 151 when more than three years have elapsed from the end of the assessment year.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if prior approval was obtained from an incorrect authority as per section 151 of the Act.
Sections Cited
250, 68, 69C, 148A, 148, 151
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIALMEMBER .
Appellant-assessee is feeling aggrieved by order dated 15.05.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, relating to the assessment year 2016- 17, whereby appeal filed by the assessee challenging assessment order dated 30.05.2023, has been dismissed, while observing that no compliance was made by the appellant on the notices issued by the office of Learned CIT(A). Four notices was stated to have been issued by the said office to Geeta Gulia vs. ITO the appellant on 27.11.2024, 02.01.2025, 06.03.2025 and 06.05.2025, under section 250 of the Income Tax Act.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Vide assessment order dated 30.05.2023, the Assessing Officer made two additions i.e. one of Rs. 73,88,830/-, u/s 68 of the Act, in respect of unexplained cash credit, and the other of Rs. 3,69,442/-, made u/s 69C of the Act , relating to unexplained expenditure.
The assessment order is stated to have been passed on initiation of proceedings u/s 148A, and having passed order dated 26.07.2022 u/s 148A(d) of the Act.
In para no. 1 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued after obtaining prior approval of Ld. PCIT, Jaipur-1 on 22.07.2022. Ld. AR for the appellant has raised only one contention that said notice u/s 148 of the Act, is illegal and bad in law, the approval for its issuance having been obtained from PCIT-1, Jaipur, in place of Principal Chief Commissioner or the alternative specified authority as provided under clause (ii) of section 151 of the Act.
Geeta Gulia vs. ITO 6. As noticed above, the matter pertains to assessment year 2016-17. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In view of provisions of section 151, where a period of more than 3 years has elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director Generalor Chief CIT or Director General shall be the specified authority for the purpose of section 148 and 148A of the Act.
Ld. DR for the department does not dispute that notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.07.2022 after obtaining prior approval of Ld. PCIT, Jaipur, and that approval was required to be obtained from the above said specified authority i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner, but, still he wanted clarification from the concerned A.O.
In the given situation,when notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.07.2022 after obtaining prior approval of Ld. PCIT, Jaipur,as specifically mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order, no further clarification is required in this regard, and, finding merit in the only contention raised by Ld. AR for the appellant that notice u/s 148 of the Act, which came to be Geeta Gulia vs. ITO issued without obtaining approval of the specified /competent authority, same is invalid. Result 9. As a result of the above discussion and finding, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), and the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer are hereby set aside. File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/09/2025.