Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2011-2012. A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 23.03.2018, which is beyond the four-year period. The reopening was based on information from the DDIT (Investigation), Kolkata.
Held
The court held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the four-year period, requiring approval from the Ld. PCIT. However, the provided approval lacked a signature, date, and seal, and was not in the prescribed proforma. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was deemed bad in law.
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment beyond four years is valid without proper approval from the PCIT.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 150(1), 150(2), 151(1), 151(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
(िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Kajal Fashionwear Agency Vs ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhubaneswar Private Limited, Plot No-73 &74/353, Jaya Dev Vihar ,Bhubaneswar, 751013 PAN No. : AADCK 5326 M (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) .. (��यथ� / Respondent) िनधा�रती क� ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CA राज�व क� ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi dated 06/06/2024 passed in Appeal No. CIT(A),Bhubaneswar-1/10363/2018-19 for the assessment year 2011-2012.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued on 23.03.2018. It is admittedly beyond the four years period. It was the submission that the reopening has been done on the basis of some information received from the DDIT (Investigation), Kolkata. It was submission that as the reopening has been done beyond the four years period, the approval for reopening is to be granted by the Ld. PCIT. It was submission that the ld. PCIT has not given the approval, though the said notice u/s.148 of the Act mentions the same. The Ld. AR drew my attention to pages 5 & 6 of the paper book, which reads as follows :-
It was the submission that there is no signature nor any comment of the ld. PCIT. The Ld. AR also drew my attention to the notice u/s.148 of the Act which reads as follows:-
It was the submission that the said notice talks of obtaining the necessary satisfaction from the Ld. PCIT. It was the submission that as the approval has not been obtained from the Ld. PCIT before the issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the reopening is liable to be quashed.
In reply, the Ld. Sr. DR Placed before the a copy of an approval from the PCIT- 1, Bhubaneswar, which reads as follows :-
It was the submission that the approval has been obtained from the PCIT. It was submission that the reopening is liable to be upheld.
I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the proforma for recording reasons and obtaining the approval from the ld. PCIT, which has been extracted above, clearly shows that the seal of the ld. PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar is there, but there is no signature of the PCIT nor there is any comment of the PCIT. A perusal of the Annexure produced by the Ld. Sr.DR shows that there is a signature under the name of PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar, but there is no date and there is no seal, This is just a piece of paper on which there is a signature. The concerned file was called for and the files shows more than 23 such annexure of the Identical variety, which contains no dates but just an initial. The comments of PCIT are also cyclostyle. It is also not in proforma prescribed for obtaining approval of the PCIT. This being so, as the proforma required does not contain the approval of the PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar for the purpose of the reopening of the assessment and as it is noticed that the reopening is beyond the four years period and the requirement of the approval from the Ld. PCIT is compulsory required, on account of absence of the same, the reopening of the assessment is held to be bad in law and same stands quashed.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 22/09/2025.