Lakshya Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT, Central Circle-15

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.12.2025 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-26 Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084248496(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 25.03.2024 u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by DCIT, CC-15, New Delhi, for AY: 2018-19.

Heard and perused the record the impugned assessment has been completed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act making additions on account of unexplained credit u/s 68 on account of disallowance of interest paid u/s 37(1) and on account of unexplained expenses u/s 69. The assessee’s appeal has been dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) for which assesse is in appeal before this Tribunal and at the time of hearing ld. Counsel has submitted that the reopening proceedings are vitiated as the notice issued u/s 148A followed by notice issued u/s 148 dated 17.03.2022 and 07.04.2022 copy of which are available at page No. 2 & 1 of the paper book respectively have been granted by PCIT, Central, Delhi-2, while it should have been granted by specified authority which was Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.

Ld. DR has argued that assesse had failed to appear before ld. CIT(A) and raised this claim. It was submitted that however, we find that though assesse had failed to appear in consequence to the notices ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to decide the appeal on merits on the basis of facts available on record. However, ld. CIT(A) has failed to take cognizance of the legal grounds No.1 to 4 by which similar plea of questioning the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was raised. Thus, non-appearance of the assesse before ld. First Appellate Authority is of no consequence and assesse can very well plead that impugned orders of ld. Tax authorities below are vitiated.

Now coming to the facts of the case we find that the year involved is AY: 2018-19 and at page No. 224 copies of notices issued u/s 148A(B) and 148 are provided and the same shows approval has been granted by PCIT, Central-2, Delhi. It is settled that notice issued after elapsing of the 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year require approval of specified authority under sub-clause (ii) of Section 151 and that happens to be Pr. Chief Commissioner or Principle Director General. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others Vs. Rajiv Bansal (2024) SCC Online (SC) 2693. That being the state of affairs the corresponding grounds deserves to be allowed. The impugned assessment orders is quashed.