Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 4675
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)
Satbeer Singh Godara, JM, Manish Agarwal, AM
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax – Appellant
Versus
Ritu Kansal – Respondent
ITA No.2113/Del/2024 | C.O. No.82/Del/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Rajesh Chandra, CIT(DR)
For the Respondents: Sh. Ravi Pratap Mall, Adv.
The validity of reassessment under the Income Tax Act hinges on obtaining proper sanction from the specified authority, failure of which quashes the reopening of assessments.
Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 147 and 151 - Reopening of assessment - Validity of reopening challenged based on failure to obtain necessary approval under section 151(ii) of the Act, quashed due to jurisdictional non-compliance as established in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70. (Para 3, 4, 5)
(B) Legal compliance - The requirement of obtaining sanction from specified authority is imperative before issuing notice under Section 148 to ensure protection of assesses from unauthorized reopening of assessments. (Para 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appeal concerns the legality of reopening assessment under section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2017-18, where necessary approval was not duly obtained by the Revenue, leading to wastage of judicial resources.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal found the impugned reopening unsustainable in law and thereby quashed it. The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed, and the assessee’s cross objection was allowed.
Issues: The main legal issue was whether the appropriate approval for assessment reopening was obtained in accordance with the provisions under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The tribunal affirmed that the essential prerequisite for the assessing officer to issue a notice under Section 148 is the grant of sanction by the appropriate authority. The failure to comply with procedural requirements rendered the reopening invalid.
Result: Revenue’s appeal dismissed and the assessee’s cross objection allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and the appeal details. (Para 2) |
| 2. issues arising regarding the validity of reopening assessments. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations and decision on the validity of the reopening. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. final ruling and summary of outcomes. (Para 6) |
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2113/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18
Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. Ritu Kansal, R-11/28, Raj Nagar, Tax, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad
PAN: ADJPK2726R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
With C.O. No.82/Del/2025 [Arising out of ITA No.2113/Del/2024]
Assessment Year: 2017-18
Ritu Kansal, Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, R-11/28, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad
PAN: ADJPK2726R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Sh. Ravi Pratap Mall, Adv.
Department by Sh. Rajesh Chandra, CIT(DR)
Date of hearing 12.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 12.08.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This Revenue’s appeal ITA No.2113/Del/2024 and assessee’s cross objection C.O. No. 82/Del/2025 for assessment year 2017- 18, are directed against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060657201(1), involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
2. For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 296 days in filing of instant cross objection is hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst.
Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
3. It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned reopening/reassessment itself as the learned lower authorities appear to have set into motion the amended section 148 proceedings against the assessee in assessment year 2017-18; vide show-cause notice dated 29.07.2022 under section 148A(d) of the Act; for the purpose of assessing its alleged unexplained transactions. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the learned lower authorities had obtained the necessary approval of the learned Principal Commission of Income Tax, Ghaziabad, dated 27.07.2022 under section 151(i) of the Act than under the latter clause (ii) thereto applicable in such an instance wherein a time period of more than three years has elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.
4. Faced with the foregoing factual position, we are of the considered view that the impugned reopening itself is not sustainable in law as the learned lower authorities have not obtained the necessary approval under section 151(ii) of the Act in light of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com
70, deciding the same against the department 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. 128 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 years
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 D
