Ajay Kumar vs Income Tax Officer

PER MADHUMITA ROY, J. M.:

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20/02/2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)/’NFAC’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 14/04/2023 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2017-18.

The matter relates to cash deposit during demonization period.

At the very threshold of the matter, the Ld. Assessee’s Representative pressed the Ground No. 2 on the issue that the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act dated 30/07/2022 for A.Y 2017-18, admittedly after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year was done upon obtaining approval from the Ld. PCIT being an authority under the provision of Section 151(1) of the Act and not the appropriate authorities under Section 151 (ii) of the Act, and, therefore, such initiation is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

In this regard, he has drawn our attention to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act appearing at Page 36 and 37 of the paper book, paragraph 3 of Page 37 whereof clearly speaks ofprior approval been obtained for issuance of noticeunder Section 148 of the Act from the Ld. PCIT, Rohtak on 29/07/2022. He has further relied upon the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act particularly appearing at Page 40 wherein Paragraph 7 again clearly speaks of prior approval having been granted by the specified authority being PCIT, Rohtak. Such contention made by the Ld. AR on this issue has not been able to be controverted by the Ld. DR.

Under these facts and circumstances of the matter, we have further considered the judgment relied upon by the Ld. AR in the case of H & M Hennes and Mauritz Retail (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2025] 174 taxm,ann.com 1113 (Delhi) wherein the order was passed under Section 148A(d) and notice of reopening of assessment was issued upon approval obtained from the PCIT and not from the PCCIT or any other authorities specified under Section 151 (ii) of the Act which was mandatory having regard to the issuance of notice under Section 148A of the Act as was made beyond the period of three years from the end of relevant assessment year and, therefore finally the impugned notice was set aside.

Having regard to the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and furtherthe order passed under Section 148A (d) of the Act, appears to have been made without obtaining approval from the PCCIT or any other specified authorities under Section 151 (ii) of the Act and only from the PCIT, Rohtak under Section 151 (i) of the Act, particularlywhen the reopening has made beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, respectfully relying upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of H & M Hennes and Mauritz Retail (P.) Ltd. (supra), the issuance of order under Section 148A of the Act and further order under Section 148A(b) are found to be bad in law and, therefore, not sustainable and thus, quashed.

Since, the matter has been disposed of on the issue as above, rest of the grounds raised by the assessee are become academic; no order needs to be passed.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.