AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 25.02.2026, for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Ms. Kalpan Garg, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee in appeal has primarily assailed validity of assessment order as the notice issued u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for reopening the assessment is barred by limitation. Narrating sequence of events, the Id. AR referred to following dates and events:
| Events | Dates |
|---|---|
| Original notice u/s.148 of the Act (at page 9 of paper book) | 16.06.2021 |
| Notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act (at page 10 and 11 of the paper book) | 19.05.2022 |
| Order u/s.148A(d) of the Act (at page 12 and 13 of the paper book) | 18.07.2022 |
| Notice u/s.148 of the Act (at page 15 of the paper book) | 18.07.2022 |
The ld. AR submits that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide letter dated 17.01.2023 had closed the assessment/reassessment proceedings that were initiated by way of notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 16.06.2021. The subsequent reassessment proceedings initiated by way of issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 18.07.2022 is time barred as the notice has been issued beyond the period of limitation.
The ld. AR made an alternate prayer that the assessment has been reopened beyond the period of three years after taking prior approval of PCIT. The provisions of section 151 of the Act mandates that where the assessment is reopened after the elapse of more than three years from the relevant assessment year, prior approval has been taken from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. In the present case, prior approval has not been taken from the Competent Authority as per section 151 of the Act. The ld. AR contended that the assessment is liable to be quashed on both the counts mentioned above.
Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department supported findings of the AO and the CIT(A) on merits of the addition.
Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. A bare perusal of notice dated 18.07.2022 issued notice u/s.148 of the Act (at page 15 of the paper book) shows that the same has been issued after obtaining prior approval of PCIT-15, Delhi. As per the provisions of section 151 of the Act (as were applicable on the relevant date), the specified sanctioning authority for the purpose of section 148 and 148A of the Act is PCCIT/CCIT if more than three years have elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year. In the instant case assessment for 2017-18 has been reopened by way of notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 18.07.2022 i.e. after the elapse of after more than three years from the relevant assessment year, after seeking approval from PCIT. Thus, the said notice has been issued in violation of provisions of section 151 of the Act. This renders the notice defective and without jurisdiction. It is a well settled legal position that any proceedings arising from notice without jurisdiction are void ab initio. In light of the documents available on record and un-disputed facts, I hold the assessment order dated 24.05.2023 without jurisdiction, hence, the same is quashed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.