DINDAYAL AGARWAL,BERHAMPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BERHAMPUR., BERHAMPUR

ITA 471/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 March 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, the prior approval for such reopening should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr. CCIT), not the Principal Commissioner (Pr. CIT). Therefore, the approval was invalid, making the notice and the consequent assessment order bad in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to the assessment year 2017-18. The key issue is the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was based on the approval of the Principal Commissioner (Pr. CIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr. CCIT). This notice was issued after more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

What were the issues?

Validity of reassessment notice issued without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority (Pr. CCIT instead of Pr. CIT) when issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Pranaya Ku. Mishra, Prashant Kumar
For Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.03.2026Pronounced: 16.03.2026

PER BENCH: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.NFAC/2016-17/10276128 dated 11.07.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri Pranaya Ku. Mishra, Prashant Kumar Mishra & Narahari Swain, Ars represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was the submission by the ld. AR that the impugned assessment year is 2017-18. The ld. AR drew our attention to the notice issued u/s 148 dated 16.112022 which reads as follows:

2

3.

1 It was the submission that this notice has been issued a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →