Proper approval from specified authorities is essential for validating reassessment notices under the Income Tax Act.

ORDER

PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:

The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A) ’ for short] dated 27/02/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14.

2. There is a delay of 09 days in filing the present appeal and the Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay filed by the Assessee, the delay of 09 days in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) has been obtained from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, and should have been obtained from PCIT. The Ld. Counsel relied on the order of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Amrit Pal Singh Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2794/Del/2025 dated 21/07/2025, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the cases of Communist Party of India (M) Vs. ITO reported in (2025) 174 Taxmann.com 925 (Del) sought for quashing the assessment order.

4. Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative submitted that the approval has been rightly obtained and assessment order has been passed on merits, therefore, relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The present case, the approval has been obtained from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, based on the said approval the assessment proceedings have initiated. As per the Assessee the PCIT is not the competent authority to grant approval. An identical question came up for consideration by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Amrit Pal Singh (supra), wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the cases of Communist Party of India (M) Vs. ITO reported in (2025) 174 Taxmann.com 925 (Del) and set aside the assessment order in following manners:-

“3. It emerges at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue o f validity of section 148 proceedings herein between the parties wherein the learned Assessing Officer had issued his corresponding notice dated 30 .06.2021 for assessment year 2014- 15 in question i.e. beyond the prescribed period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year after getting approval o f the PCIT , Delhi-1 only. This being the clinching factual position, the assessee has quoted hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision that in such an instance , the necessary sanction could not be obtained from the PCIT as the facts herein , in light o f Communist Party of India (M) Vs. ITO, (2025) 174 taxmann.com 925 (Del.) deciding the very issue against the department as follows:

“2. The petitioner is a national political party and is registered under Section 29A o f the Representation o f Peoples Act , 1951 . The petitioner filed its return of income for the assessment year [AY] 2016-17 on 15.10 .2016 , declaring a NIL income, after claiming exemption under Section 13A of the Income Tax Act , 1961.

3 . The initial notice under Section 148 of the A ct for AY 2016- 17 was issued on 28 .06 .2021 . The said notice was unsustainable as it was issued in accordance with the statutory regime as existed prior to 31 .03 .2021 . This court in the case of Mon Mohan Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax &Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2021:DHC:4181-DB had set aside such notices that were issued after 31.03 .2021 without following the procedure as prescribed under A of the Ac t. Some o f the other High Courts also took a similar view and struck down notices that were issued un