AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.01.2026 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1085118885(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 31.05.2023 u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, for AY: 2016-17.
On hearing both sides we find that the primary ground of challenge of the impugned assessment order is that the notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY: 2016-17 has not been issued by competent authority. The copy of notice available at page No. 55 of the paper book shows that the same has been issued after obtaining approval of Pr. CIT, Rohtak, dated 29.07.2022.
Though the ld. DR has defended that impugned approval, however, we find that issue is covered in favour of the assesse by decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajiv Bansal (2024) (1) TMI 264 wherein with regard to AY: 2016-17, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that competent authority for giving the approval was Principle Chief Commissioner or Deputy Director General and where these authorities are not there, then, the Chief Commissioner or Director General are the competent authority to grant approval. This view has been followed by Coordinate Bench in case of Kotwalia Builders LLP Vs. ITO, Ward 14(3) in ITA 2124/Del/2025 order dated 28.11.2025, in which one of us, the ld. Judicial member was on the Bench and in case of Amitabh Tayal Vs. ITO 636 & 637/Del/2016 order dated 06.05.2026 in which one of us, the ld. Accountant Member was on bench. The notice date 30.07.2022 thus, being issued beyond 3 years with approval by ld. PCIT u/s 151(ii) of the Act, is vitiated.
In the light of aforesaid we sustain the ground No. 2.7. The appeal of assesse is allowed and the impugned assessment order is quashed.