Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had issued a Section 148 notice after obtaining prior approval from the PCIT.
Held
The Tribunal held that the sanction obtained from the PCIT for issuing the notice under Section 148 fell under Section 151(1) and not Section 151(ii) of the Act, as contended by the assessee. The Tribunal also relied on a Bombay High Court judgment quashing a similar notice.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 for reopening the assessment was validly sanctioned under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, considering the delay in issuing the notice.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148, 151(ii), 151(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Hukam Chand Singla, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 33-A, Shanti Nagar, Ward-1, Model Town, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Haryana-132103 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BDQPS7971C Assessee by: Sh. Suresh Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078747197(1) dated 22.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost legal ground herein, it emerges during the course of hearing that the learned Assessing Officer had issued section 148 notice dated 06.04.2022 after obtaining prior approval of the PCIT, Rohtak. That being the case, learned counsel invites the tribunal’s attention to section 151(ii) of the Act; as it was than Hukam Chand Singla applicable, stipulating such a notice issued after a lapse of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, to be approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner............, as the case may be.
Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned PCIT’s sanction obtained herein comes under section 151(1) than clause (ii) applicable in the assessee’s case. Learned counsel further quotes Vodafone Idea Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2024) 468 ITR 346 (Bom.) quashing a similar notice. I therefore find merit in the assessee’s instant legal ground to quash the impugned reopening itself in very terms therefore.
All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic.