Vijay Kumar Manchanda vs Income Tax Officer Ward 59(8), Delhi

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre [in short “CIT(A)”], dated 28.02.2026, for assessment year 2016-17.

Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessment in the present case has been reopened beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant AY 2016-17 vide issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 21.07.2022. A copy of the notice is at page 130 & 131 of the paper-book. A perusal of the said notice would show that the same has been issued after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commission of Income Tax (In short “PCIT”). As per the provision of section 151 of the Act, where the assessment is reopened beyond the period of three years, prior approval should have been taken from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (in short “PCCIT”) or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (in short “CCIT”). The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported as [2024] 167 taxmann.com 17 (SC).

Per contra, Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR, representing the department supported the impugned order and prayed for upholding the addition on merits.

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. The assessee in the present appeal has confined his submissions on the legal ground challenging validity of reopening of assessment. As per the notice under section 148 of the Act available on record, the same was issued on 21.07.2022, which clearly shows that the same was issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. As per the provisions of section 151 of the Act, where the assessment is reopened after elapse of more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, prior approval from PCCIT or CCIT is mandatory. From reading of the notice under section 148, it emerges that the notice has been issued by the Assessing Officer after seeking prior approval of PCIT, Delhi -20, New Delhi. The approval sought for issuance of notice under section 148 in the present case is not as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act, as well as, the law explained in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra). Thus, the notice issued under section 148, dated 21.07.2022 is without jurisdiction. Any proceedings arising from defective notice are void ab-initio. Accordingly, the assessment order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.