PRADYUMNA KUMAR LATH,JHARSUGUDA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE ,ROURKELA, ROURKELA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that for issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act after the expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year, the approval must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CCIT). Since the approval was granted by the Pr.CIT, it was invalid. Therefore, the notice issued under section 148 and the consequent assessment order were quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016-2017. A notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 28.07.2022, which was beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The approval for this notice was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CCIT).
What were the issues?
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is valid when the approval for its issuance was granted by an authority not competent to do so, especially when issued beyond the prescribed time limit.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- Ramesh Bachulal Mehta v. ITO27 citing177 Taxmann.com 606 · 2025 · HC
- ACIT, International Taxation v. LinkedIn Singapore Pte. Ltd.8 citing180 Taxmann.com 158 · 2025 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 18.11.2025 for the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the impugned assessment year is 2016-17. It was submission that notice u/s.148 of the Act came to be issued on 28/07/2022. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the copy of the notice issued which reads as follows:-
2 3
It was the submission that the notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued beyond 03
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.
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
- 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
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026