AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dated 08.08.2025 for the A.Y. 2016-17.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to ground No.1 of grounds of appeal submitted that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and assessment framed u/s.147 of the Act pursuant to such notice is bad in law for the reason that there is no proper sanction by appropriate authority u/s.151 of the Act.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in this case a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issue on 31.07.2022 for reopening the assessment for A.Y.2016-17 which is beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore, as per provision of section 151 (ii) of the Act the approval for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act should have been obtained from PCCIT. However, in the case of the assessee the AO obtained approval from PCIT who was not the specified competent authority as per section 151(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the entire proceedings and orders are vitiate being invalid and therefore, they are liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (469 ITR 46) and Abhinav Jindal HUF Vs. ITO W.P. (C) 2698/2022 dated 20.09.2024 (Delhi High Court) and Rajbir Singh Vs. ACIT in ITA No.3104/Del/2025 dated 14.11.2025.
Heard rival contentions. We find considerable merit in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abhinav Jindal HUF Vs. ITO (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra). Further, this Tribunal is consistently following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, holding that when an assessment is reopened beyond of the period of years from the end of the relevant assessment year by issue of a notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the appropriate authority u/s.151(ii) of the Act to grant permission for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act for reopening of an assessment is PCCIT and not PCIT. Thus, respectfully following the said decision we allow the ground no.1 of grounds of appeal and quash the reassessment order accordingly. All the other grounds except ground No.1 are left open.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.