Vinod Chauhan vs Income Tax Officer

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 15.12.2025 of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083686215(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 17.05.2023 u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by National E-Assessment Center, for AY: 2017-18.

On hearing both sides we find that among other grounds on merits assesse has raised grounds challenging the assumption of jurisdiction itself on the basis of notice u/s 148 being not issued in accordance with law and ld. DR has vehemently opposed the same that on facts of the case the proposition of law relied on behalf of assesse in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Aggarwal, Civil Appeal No. 305/2022 order dated 04.05.2022 and Rajiv Bansal case reported in 469 ITR 46 are not applicable.

We have perused the material on record and admittedly at page No. 42A notice u/s 148 of the Act is provided which mentions the fact that the notice dated 30.07.2022, was issued in consequence of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Aggarwal case (supra) and that the notice is being with prior approval dated 26.07.2022 granted by Pr. CIT-10. We find that copy of this approval dated 26.07.2022 is available at page No. 42 of the paper book wherein Income Tax Officer (HQ) in the office of Pr. CIT-10, New Delhi signed this approval and has addressed the same to the assessing officer informing of the fact of approval u/s 148A(b) granted by PCIT-10, Delhi on 25.07.2022. Now admittedly, the assessment year involved is 2017-18 and the notice u/s 148 is dated 30.07.2022. Thus, it is the case where 3 years have elapsed and the specified authority competent to grant of approval u/s 151(ii) was Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and not Principal Chief Commissioner. Reliance for this is rightly placed by ld. Counsel on the decision in case of Rajiv Bansal (supra). In the light of aforesaid we are inclined to sustain corresponding grounds and remaining grounds are left academic. The appeal of assesse is allowed and the impugned assessment order is quashed.