JAG PREET SINGH NARANG,KAUSHAMBHI vs. THE ITO, WARD 58(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6910/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because the sanction was not obtained from the competent authority. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Manish Gyanchand Mehta Versus DCIT. Consequently, the subsequent action initiated based on the invalid notice was void-ab-initio.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case for AY 2017-18 was reopened by issuing notice under Section 148. The notice was issued more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year. The sanction for reopening was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), who was not the competent authority for such approval when more than three years have passed.

What were the issues?

Validity of notice under Section 148 when sanction is not from a competent authority for reopening after three years.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 21.08.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2017-18.

2.

Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however in my considered view the only substantial grounds of appeal relates to validity of notice under section 148 that sanction/approval is not from competent authority and the addition of Rs.8.00 lakhs under section 68 of the Act, which is on merit.

3.

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused.

The learned Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the case of the assessee for AY 2017-18 was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 22.07.2022. The case of assessee was reopened beyond three years from end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain the sanction/approval from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have passed from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has obtained sanction/approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)as recorded in para 3 of notice under section 148 itself.

As approval is not by the competent authority, therefore, notice u/s 148 is invalid and subsequent action initiated thereon is Void-ab-initio. To support such contention, the ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Manish Gyanchand Mehta Versus DCIT reported in 173 taxmann.com 953(Delhi).

4.

On the other hand, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities.

5.

I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I have also perused the notice under section 148, copy of which is placed on record. Admittedly, the case of the assessee was reopened for AY 2017-18 by issuing notice dated 22.07.2022. Para 3 of the notice u/s 148 contained the reference ”the notice is being issued after obtaining the prior approval of PCIT dated 21.07.2022 vide reference number 1158.” Considering the fact that during the relevant period sanction was required from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, in case more than three years have passed from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, the assessing officer obtained sanction from PCIT who was not competent to approve such sanction, therefore, notice under section 148 is invalid and subsequent action initiated thereon is void-ab-initio.

Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Gyanchand Mehta versus DCIT (supra). Thus, I accept the preliminary submissions of ld AR of the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue. Considering the fact that assessee succeeded on legal issue, hence, discussion of merit has become academic.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 01st December, 2025.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →