Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 3543
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)
SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, J, SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACJ
ANKITA LOKSH GOYAL – Appellant
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER – Respondent
I.T.A Nos.5408/Del/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kapil Goel, Sandeep Goel
For the Respondents: Ajay Kumar Arora
Reassessment under the Income Tax Act requires valid sanction from the appropriate authority; failure to comply renders the assessment void ab initio.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 147, 148, 151, and 250 - Reassessment proceedings - The assessment order passed without valid sanction under Section 151 is void ab initio. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's approval was insufficient as it was obtained beyond three years from the relevant assessment year. (Paras 3, 5, 6, 7)
(B) Jurisdiction for reassessment - The court emphasized that proper authority for sanction must be adhered to, and failure to do so renders the reassessment invalid. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The assessee challenged the assessment order for AY 2016-17, arguing it was passed without lawful authority, particularly lacking valid sanction for reopening.
Findings of Court:
The court found the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid due to improper authority for sanction, thus quashing the assessment.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the reassessment action was valid given the lack of proper sanction under the Income Tax Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the sanction for reassessment must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner if it is beyond three years from the assessment year, which was not followed in this case.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments regarding invalidity of assessment order. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's observations on legal compliance. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. ratio decidendi on invalidity of reassessment. (Para 7) |
| 4. final conclusion and order. (Para 8) |
आदेश /ORDER
PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 25.09.2024 for the AY 2016-17. The assessee raised the following grounds: -
A) “That the Ld.CIT(A) vide impugned order passed u/s 250 dated 25.09.2024 erred in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed u/s 147/144B of “1961” Act dated 29.05.2023, which is nullity and is void ab initio and unlawful and is passed without authority of law.
B) That Ld. CIT-4 vide impugned order passed u/s 250 dated 25.09.2024 erred in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed u/s 147/148 of “1961” Act dated 29.05.2023, based on illegal/invalid jurisdictional notice(s) u/s 148 dated 16.07.2022 (new law notice) and 14.06.2021 (old law notice).
C) That Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order passed u/s250 dated 25.09.2024 erred in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed u/s 147/148 of “1961” Act dated 29.05.2023, which is totally contrary to mandate of 1961 Act and totally lacks fulfillment of requisite preliminary conditions stipulated under the Act.
D) That Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order passed u/s 250 dated 25.09.2024 erred in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed u/s 147/148 of “1961” Act dated 29.05.2023, without valid “supply” of relevant reasons to believe if any u/s 148(2) and valid sanction u/s 151 sans which entire proceedings are invalid.
E) That Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order passed u/s 250 dated 25.09.2024 erred in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed u/s 147/148 of “1961” Act dated 29.05.2023, as ex-facie there is no valid “reasons to believe” u/s 148(2)/and where no valid order is passed u/s 148A(d), no valid sanction u/s 151 is there, so entire reopening proceedings are vitiated.
F) That Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order passed u/s 250 dated 25.09.2024 erred in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed u/s 147/148 of “1961” Act dated 29.05.2023 where entire reopening u/s 148 is full of multiple “errors” and is based on mere conjectures/surmises and suspicion and mere borrowed satisfaction.
G) That Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order passed u/s 250 dated 25.09.2024 erred in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed u/s 147/148 of “1961” Act dated 29.05.2023 which is passed in totally “ARBITRARY” manner without any application of mind much less independent application of mind (as there is no relevant statutory provision spelt out at any stage under which addition is made).
H) That Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order passed u/s 250 dated 25.09.2024 erred in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed u/s 147/148 of “1961” Act dated 29.05.2023 which is passed in total violation of principle of natural justice.
I) That Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order passed u/s 250 dated 25.09.2024 erred in not quashing the impugned assessment order passed u/s 147/148 of “1961” Act dated 29.05.2023 where admittedly there is clear “variation” between order u/s 148A(d) and final assessment order which is fatal.
J) That Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order passed u/s 250 dated 25.09.2024 erred in sustaining the impugned addition to the extent of Rs.117,87,999 which impugned addition is “arbitrarily” made/sustained as apparently there is no valid legal justification/basis for the same.”
2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground nos. D & E of grounds of appeal submitted that the assessment order passed u/s 147/144B of the Act dated 25.09.2023 by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and void ab initio for the reason that the said order was passed without a valid sanction u/s 151 of the Act as ex-facie there is no valid “reasons to believe” u/s 148(2) and no valid order is passed u/s 148A(b) and therefore the entire reopening proceedings are vitiated.
3. The
