AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER RENU JAUHRI :
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.05.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2016-17. Assessment was framed by AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s section 144B of the Act.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“(i)That under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC is wrong, unjust and has erred in law and facts in invoking the provisions of section 147 to 151 of the I.T. Act. Kindly quash the notice u/s 148 dt. 30.03.2023 as well as consequential assessment proceedings.
(ii)That under the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC is wrong, unjust and has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 1,39,57,750/- which is wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the addition.
(iii)That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC is wrong, unjust and has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition on account of S.T.C.G amounting to Rs. 92,25,000/- to the total income of the assessee by adding the entire sale consideration. Kindly delete the addition.
(iv)That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer is against the principle of Natural Justice. Hence, the order is liable to be quashed.
(v)That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend to any of the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file its return for A.Y. 2016-17. As per information available on the portal of the department, the assessee was found to have sold immovable property for sale for consideration of Rs. 92,25,000/- and, also made cash deposit of Rs. 11,00,000/- during F.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2023, after passing order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, as per prescribed procedure.
Assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B at an income of Rs. 2,31,82,750/- after making several additions. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee was dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2025 as the assessee had failed to make any submissions in response to notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A).
Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal.
At the outset, Ld. AR as raised the issue regarding legality of the notice issued u/s 148 in respect of which following additional ground has been raised:
“1.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Notice issued u/s 148 is without Jurisdiction and without following the Provisions of Section 147 to 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961. So, the notice u/s 148 as well as consequential reassessment proceedings and assessment order are illegal, unlawful, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Kindly quash the Notice u/s 148 and subsequential assessment order. ”
Ld. AR has filed a paperbook containing a copy of the proforma of approval by specified authority which was provided to the assessee along with the order u/s 148A(d) which is unsigned by the prescribed authority i.e., the PCCIT, Chandigarh. Further, a copy of proforma of approval provided along with notice u/s 148 has also been placed on record. Since it is not clear from these documents whether the PCCIT has granted approval for issue of notice u/s 148, Ld. AR has argued that the notice issued u/s 148 was without valid approval and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
In the light of above, Ld. DR was required to furnish a copy of the duly signed approval of PCCIT, Chandigarh. A copy of the reply received from Ld. AO has been filed by the Ld. AR. However, it is not clear from the same whether the approval for issue of notice u/s 148 has been given by the PCCIT under his physical/digital signatures.
After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the documents placed before us, we are of the considered view that the revenue has not been able to controvert the assertion of the Ld. AR regarding the absence of duly signed approval granted by the Ld. PCCIT u/s 151 of the Act. We note that in the report of the Ld. AO, filed by Ld. DR before us, it has not been categorically stated as to whether the approval u/s 151 was given under physical/digital signatures of the prescribed authority. Under these facts and circumstances, we, hereby, quash the notice u/s 148 as the same has been issued without proper approval of the specified authority.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.