AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 27.11.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the case was reopened on the ground that there was information of a theft amounting to Rs.300,60,000/- in the assessee’s house, whereas the return was filed u/s 44AD of the Act at Rs.4,98,700. An addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- has been confirmed at first appellate stage.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds of appeal challenging the illegality of the assessment order as also the addition on merit.
Before us the Ld. AR argued with the help of written submissions and requested that ground no.7 pertaining to the alleged improper statutory approval from the specified authority, as provided u/s 151 of the Act, could be taken up before proceeding any further in the matter. It was pointed out that the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act has been passed and notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued on 26.07.2022. It was emphasized by the Ld. AR that this notice was issued after more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. It was the submission that following the case of Rajeev Bansal (2024) (10) TMI 264-Supreme Court (LB), dated 03.10.2024, the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General of Income Tax and certainly not the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. It was pointed out that in this case the appropriate approval has not been taken and thus, the proceedings were illegal following the Rajeev Bansal case (supra). The Ld. AR also pointed out that ground no.11 pertained to no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act being issued in spite of fact that a return of income was filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. For this proposition reliance was placed on the case of Hotel Blue Moon (2010) (2) TMI 1 – Supreme Court dated 02.02.2010.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.
We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We have also perused the Rajeev Bansal case (supra). On the basis of facts before us, we find that the approval has not been obtained from the designated authority, being the Principal Chief Commissioner etc. and thus, the consequential order of the Ld. AO is held to be void. Since the assessee has succeeded with respect to ground no.7, hence, we do not deem it necessary to adjudicate any other grounds, which are left open.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.