Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 5125
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member, Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member
VILAYIL SATYAN PILLAI NEW DELHI – Appellant
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 60(5) DELHI NEW DELHI – Respondent
ITA No.2376/Del/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kishan Gupta
For the Respondents: Sanjeev Kaushal
A notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid if the approval is obtained from a Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner as mandated by Section 151(ii).
Headnote:The appeal involves a challenge to a reassessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as the approval obtained under Section 151 was from an authority not competent to grant such approval for the relevant period. The court found that the notice was issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, which necessitates approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner. The primary issue is whether a notice issued under Section 148 is sustainable when the approval is obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the authority prescribed under Section 151(ii) of the Act for cases where more than three years have elapsed. The court reasoned that statutory sanction from the specified higher authority is mandatory under the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, and any deviation from this requirement renders the notice void. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in filing an appeal is condoned if there is reasonable cause and no mala fide intent. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. the validity of a reassessment notice depends on whether approval was obtained from the competent authority. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. notices issued after three years from the end of the assessment year require approval from the principal chief commissioner or chief commissioner under section 151(ii). (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. when a legal ground for quashing a notice is upheld, other grounds of appeal need not be adjudicated. (Para 10 , 11) |
O R D E R
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), [“CIT(A)”, in short] National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dt. 21.01.2025 arising out of the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act for Assessment Year 2017-18.
2. This appeal was filed delayed by 10 days by the assessee for which an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit of the assessee reaffirming the facts stated in the application are filed. It is stated that the order of Ld. CIT(A) was served on e-filing portal and assessee was out of town due to illness of his wife who is residing at Kerla and also fir some family urgencies thus the appeal could not be filed in time. It is further stated that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but purely due to the above unavoidable circumstances. It is thus requested that delay being bonafide, deserves to be condoned and appeal be admitted for adjudication.
3. Per contra, Ld. CIT. DR opposed to the condonation of delay.
4. After considering the arguments of both the parties, we find that there is reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by only 10 days. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapses of the litigant concerned, that alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against it. When the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must give utmost consideration to such litigant and its right of hearing of the appeal on merit ought not to be shut. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, delay in filling the appeal is condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication.
5. In Ground of appeal No. 3, assessee has challenged the reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act by alleging that the notice is issued u/s148 after obtaining approval from the authority which was not competent to grant approval u/s 151 of the Act.
6. Heard both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. Claim of the assessee is that the fresh notice u/s 148 of the Act on 20.07.2022 after passing the order u/s 148A(d) on even date was issued after obtaining the approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-20, Delhi. Similarly, the order u/s 148A(d) was passed after obtaining prior approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-20, Delhi and approval was not taken from the authority prescribed u/s 151(ii) of the Act.
7. Section 148 of the Act is substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and notice u/s 148 of the Act under the old provisions applicable till 31.03.2021 could be issued only upto 31.03.2021. This issue stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in 444 ITR 1 (SC). Under the amended provisions for reopening the assessment, the AO should issue notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act and after considering the submission of the assessee order u/s 148A(d) of the Act should be passed. Thereafter the notice u/s 148 of the Act could be issued only after getting the approval from the authority prescribed u/s 151 of the Act. The provisions as contained in
