AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Learned CIT(Appeals), New Delhi dated 4th November, 2025 in appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10466005. Assessment was framed in this case by the DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi vide order dated 24th March, 2025 under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
In this case the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.706,64,458/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was made on account of treating unsecured loans representing the impugned amount on the ground that it failed the test of creditworthiness of the loan givers and genuineness of the transaction. The aggrieved assessee approached the CIT(A) who granted relief to the assessee on the ground of an alleged illegal assumption of jurisdiction on the basis that the approval for issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act was obtained from Pr. CIT rather than Pr. CCIT or CCIT. This was held to be against the mandate u/s 151 of the Act.
Aggrieved with this action the Revenue has filed the present appeal with the following revised grounds (dated 21.01.2026): -
1.“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment order passed u/s 147 read with Section 144B, holding that the notice issued u/s 148 was without jurisdiction due to lack of approval from the “Specified Authority” u/s 151(ii) of the Act while the notice was issued on 18.03.2024 with the approval of CCIT.
2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the provision of section 151(ii) after amendment of Finance Act, 2021 while the same was not applicable to the notice issued on 18.03.2024.
3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in applying the TOLA while the assessment proceeding was not covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal” dated 04/05/2022 as the notice was issued on 18.03.2024.
4.The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was insufficient. The notice dated 18.03.2024 issued with the prior approval of CCIT-4, New Delhi.
5.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal purely on technical ground without adjudicating upon the merits of the additions amounting to Rs.7,06,64,458/- made u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credits (accommodation entries) received from the shell entities controlled by entry operator Shri Ankit Bhageria.
6.That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the reopening was based on tangible information gathered during a search and seizure operation (Filatex Group/Ankit Bhageria), which clearly established that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries in the nature of fictitious loans.
7.The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, which states that no return, assessment, or notice shall be deemed invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect, or omission if such notice is in substance and effect in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act.
8.The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the information was different in each assessment proceedings.
9.That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal.”
Before us the Ld. DR specifically pointed out ground no.4 whereby it is clearly mentioned that the notice dated 18.03.2024 was issued with the prior approval of CCIT-IV, New Delhi. It was averred that the approval was obtained from an appropriate level officer and not from a Pr. CIT as has been mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) in pages 59 to 60 and elsewhere in the impugned order. The Ld. DR stated that this matter should have been examined on merits and a decision should have been rendered thereon by ld. CIT(A) after testing the finding of fact by the Ld. AO regarding the lack of creditworthiness/genuineness of the loan givers and the transactions thereon.
The Ld.AR very fairly mentioned that indeed the approval for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act was given by a Chief Commissioner level officer, as mentioned in ground no.4 and therefore the finding of Ld. CIT(A) was factually incorrect. She stated that the Bench could consider remanding this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for examining the impugned transactions on merit.
We have considered the submissions of Ld. DR/AR and we have also gone through the documents before us. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding in more than one place that the approval for issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act was obtained from PCIT and not CCIT/PCCIT. Since both the sides agree that indeed the approval u/s 151 of the Act was obtained from CCIT-IV, New Delhi, hence the consequential finding and decision regarding an alleged faulty assumption of jurisdiction, at first appellate stage cannot be supported. We agree with both the Ld. DR/AR that the Ld. CIT(A) must adjudicate on the merits and examine the fact-finding done by the Ld. AO regarding the impugned transactions. To this extent, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) would give ample opportunity of being heard and the assessee would do well to avail of such opportunities.
In the result, this appeal is partly allowed.
Decision pronounced in the open court on 3rd June, 2026.