Mrunmayee Priyadarshini Pattnaik vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-54(1)

'1. That, the notice u/s 148A(b) and order u/s 148A(d) the Income tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and on facts, as the enquiry before reassessment proceedings were initiated and completed without proper compliance to principles of natural justice. The appellant was deprived of adequate opportunity to present her case, and the assessment was done ex parte based on alleged non compliance which is factually incorrect.

2.

That, the notice u/s 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and on facts.

3.

That, the Approval taken u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law.

4.

That, the AO has not issued any notice under section 143(2). In such circumstances, the mere observation that the return is invalid in the assessment order, without any statutory notice under section 143(2), is a complete non application of mind and is contrary to settled law by Patna High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nagendra Prasad, (2023) 156 taxmann.com 19 (Pat).

5.

That, the learned Assessing Officer (AO) grossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 48,00,000 under section 56(2)(x) as Income from Other Sources on the ground of difference between the stamp duty value and the consideration paid for purchase of two properties, without appreciating that the transfer and possession actually took place in FY 2006-07 and FY 2013-14, which is prior to the insertion of section 56(2)(x) with effect from 1 April 2017. Hence, the provision does not apply to the impugned transactions.

6.

That, the order passed under section 147 read with section 144 and 144B of the Income tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and on facts, as the reassessment proceedings were initiated and completed without proper compliance to principles of natural justice. The appellant was deprived of adequate opportunity to present her case, and the assessment was done ex parte based on alleged non compliance which is factually incorrect.

7.

That, the appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify, substitute, DLEETE OR otherwise revise all OR any of the foregoing grounds of appeal, and to raise such further OR other grounds at OR before the time of hearing of this appeal, as may be considered necessary OR expedient.

11.

Whether there is any delay in filing of appeal (if yes, please attach application seeking condonation of delay)."

"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are bad in law and liable to be quashed as the Assessing Officer failed to provide the approval/sanction obtained under section 151 of the Act despite specific request of the assessee in RTI citing, thereby violating principles of natural justice and rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid."

"In response to mail dated 06.05.2026, the ITO, Ward-54(1) Delhi vide mail dated 07.05.2026 submitted that 'all relevant records available with their office have already been forwarded to you. Furthermore, as the PAN data of the applicant is already accessible at your end. Therefore, you are requested to kindly process the RTI application and take further necessary action accordingly'. Keeping in view the time limitation as per RTI section 7(1), this office vide mail dated 29.05.2026 disposed of the received RTI with the following remarks.

S.No.	Query as per RTI	Remarks
1.	Copy of request letter to sanction authority by ITO, Ward-54(1) and approval u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961	On perusal of the ITBA Portal as well as the file folder forwarded by ITO, Ward-54(1) Delhi, it is observed that no such documents is available in the file records and in the ITBA-Systems.
2.	Reason for non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, even return filed in response to notice u/s 148	Assessee filed an invalid return in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act'.

Further, it is worthy to mention here that the statutory order dated 31.03.2022 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act itself containing a remarks at the end para of the same that 'This order is being passed with prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Delhi. Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is issued along with this order after obtaining prior approval of the PCIT-12 Delhi.'

"3.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act without the approval from the appropriate authority u/s 151 of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore submits that since the assessments were reopened without the approval of competent authority u/s 151 of the Act the consequential reassessments made by issue of notice u/s 148 in the absence of any approval of such reassessments are bad in law and void ab initio. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 issued by the AO for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 were all undated. Further the AO did not mention in the reasons whether he has taken any prior approval for initiating the reassessment proceedings and for issue of notice u/s 148 for these assessment years. We observe that the assessee also filed under RTI seeking to supply a copy of approval granted by the competent authority for reopening of these assessments. The 2 ITA Nos.349, 350 & 351/Del/2017 CPIO/ITO, Ward 48(1), New Delhi by order dated 04.07.2023 informed the assessee as under:-

OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-48(1),ROOM NO. 2609,26^th Floor,'E-2' BLOCK, DR. SHYAMA PRASAD MUKHERJEE CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI. E-MAIL ID: [email protected] F. No. ITO /Ward 48 (1)/RTI/2023-24/7Dated: 04.07.2023 Name of the applicantSh. Arpit Goel Address205, 11nd Floor, 4262/3 Ansari Road Daryaganj, Delhi RTI No.INCTD/R/E/23/00092 dated 02.06.2023 Received on this office15.06.2023 Order u/s 7(1), of the RTI Act,2005 This office is in receipt of the RTI Application through transfer u/s 6(3) of R.T.I. Act, 2005 filed online vide R.No INCTD/R/E/23/00092 dated 02.06.2023 by the applicant Shri Arpit Goel, seeking information in respect of the copies of approval for assessment proceedings relevant to assessment year 2011-12 and copy of information received by the then Jurisdictional assessing officer on the basis of which he initiated the reassessment proceedings. It is submitted that the assessment in the case was finalized on 10.03.2021 by the erstwhile Assessing Officer Ward 30(2), Delhi converted in Ward 48(2), Delhi. This implies that proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was initiated in March 2013 i.e. almost 10 years before. Furthermore, the case, during the time span was transferred from the Ward 52(1), Delhi on 20.07.2021. Accordingly, this office is not in possession of the case record of the assessee for the relevant assessment year. As per section 3 of the Destruction of Records Act, 1917 (5 of 1917) only records upto 5 years have to be kept. Therefore, the record for the relevant assessment year is not in possession of this office. In view of the above, the RTI application of the applicant is disposed off accordingly. In case, if you are not satisfied with the reply, appeal, within 30 days of the order, may be preferred to 1^st Appellate Authority i.e. CPIO, O/o Jt/Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax 46, Delhi at Room No 1305, 13rd Floor, Civic Centre .S.P. Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi 110002. (Ramesh Kumar) CPIO/Income Tax Officer Ward-48(1), New Delhi. Copy to: 1. The CPIO/ Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-46, Delhi for kind information. CPIO, Income Tax Officer Ward-48(1), New Delhi.

6.

From the perusal of the above order, we noticed that the Revenue could not provide any copy of approval as they were not in a possession of the case records. We observed that since the AO never stated in the reasons recorded whether any approval has been taken by him from the competent authority before issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act for reopening of assessments for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 creating a doubt whether at all the AO has obtained any prior mandatory prior u/s 151 of the Act more so when the reasons for reopening of assessments were all undated. The Revenue also could not provide any copy of approval if any granted for reopening of the assessments. In the absence of any approval u/s 151 from the competent authority for reopening of assessments the assessments made without such approval becomes bad in law and void ab initio. Thus, we quash the reassessment orders for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 as the reassessments were made without the prior approval of the competent authority u/s 151 of the Act.

7.

Since we have quashed the reassessments for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 on a legal issue. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the addition/disallowance made by the AO in the assessment orders for all these years as it would be of only academic in nature at this stage and the same are left open.

8.

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed as indicated above."