AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.08.2025, passed by CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for A.Y. 2016-17.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
"1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal ("CIT(A)") has erred in sustaining an erroneous determination of assessed Income amounting to Rs. 3,91,66,480/-, without considering material placed on record and in passing a non-speaking order by merely reiterating the content of the Impugned Assessment Order rendering the same as bad in law.
2.That the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in passing the impugned order ex-parte, without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the same is in violation of mandatory principles of natural justice requiring adherence.
3.That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the Assessment Order without considering that the information relied upon by the Ld. AO is pertaining to some another entity and the instant initiation of re-assessment proceeding is per se invalid and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
3.1.That on the facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the Assessment Order without considering the unassailable facts that the said income being alleged as having escaped assessment, had already been duly reported and offered to tax by another entity viz; Emaar India Limited in its return of income for AY 2011-12.
4.That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the Assessment Order without appreciating that the Ld. AO has applied the erstwhile provisions of sections 147 to 151 of the Act (as they stood prior to the amendment by the Finance Act, 2021) whilst the impugned reassessment notice issued under section 148 of the Act is dated June 30, 2021, issued in complete disregard of the amended reassessment scheme brought into force with effect from April 1, 2021. The initiation of re-assessment proceeding being contrary to the substituted statutory framework, is ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction.
5.That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the Assessment Order without first disposing of the objections filed by the appellant in response to the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act.
5.1.That on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the Assessment Order in complete disregard to the mandatory statutory procedure prescribed under section 148A of the Act rendering the entire reassessment action as illegal and void ab-initio."
Although several grounds have been raised by the assessee, ld. AR sought to first take up ground no. 4 relating to approval of the specified authority.
Brief facts in this regard are that the assessee had filed return for A.Y. 2016-17 declaring loss of Rs.7,499/- on 21.09.2016. Subsequently, based on information regarding sale of immovable property available on the Insight portal of the department, the AO issued notice u/s 148 dated 20.07.2022. Assessment was subsequently completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B vide order dated 29.05.2023 at an income of Rs.6,36,95,868/-. Appeal of the assessee was also dismissed by Id. CIT(A) vide order dated 20.08.2025 against which the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.
At the outset, Id. AR has submitted that as per the amended provisions of section 151 w.e.f. 01.04.2021, the approval of PCCIT/CCIT was required to be taken before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. He has further submitted that the issue is covered by numerous decisions of the co-ordinate benches, in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC). Copies of some of these orders have been placed on record.
Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submission and perused the material placed on record. From the copy of approval placed on record, it is evident that the approval of Pr. CIT, Delhi-VII was taken by the AO on 19.07.2022 for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In this regard, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) has laid down as under:
"73.Section 151 imposes a check upon the power of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtains the sanction of the specified authority before issuing a notice under section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assesses from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of assessments Sri krishna (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 87Taxman 315/221 ITR 538 (SC) /[1996] 9 SCC 534. A table representing the prescription under the old and new regime is set out below:
Regime Time limits Specified authority Section 151(2)of the old regime Before expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year Joint Commissioner Section 151(1)of the old regime After expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner Section 151(i)of the new regime Three years or less than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director Section 151(ii)of the new regime More than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General 74.The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old regime:
(i)If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and
(ii)If income escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.
75.After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of Ashish Agarwal (supra), after 1 April 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under section 151 of the new regime. The effect of Section 151 of the new regime is thus:
(i)If income escaping assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of three years; and
(ii)If income escaping assessment is more than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be, issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) after three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General."
In view of above decision, we hold that the notice u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 in respect of A.Y. 2016-17 was issued without the requisite approval of the PCCIT/CCIT as mandated u/s 151(ii) of the Act as more than 3 years had elapsed. The same is therefore, invalid and hence being quashed. As the notice itself has been quashed, the remaining grounds raised by the assessee are rendered infructuous and need no adjudication.
In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed.