SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 6588

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member
Sanjay Aneja – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent
ITA for AY 2016-17



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gurjeet Singh, CA
For the Respondents: Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Reassessment notice invalid if approval taken from Principal Commissioner instead of Principal Chief Commissioner under section 151(ii) when over three years from assessment year end; TOLA does not alter specified authority hierarchy.

Headnote:(A) Income-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, 151 - Reassessment proceedings - Validity of notice under section 148A(b) - More than three years elapsed from end of relevant assessment year - Approval obtained from Principal Commissioner instead of prescribed Principal Chief Commissioner under section 151(ii) - TOLA extensions do not alter specified authority requirements under amended section 151 - Failure to obtain approval from competent authority vitiates entire reopening proceedings - All subsequent orders including assessment under section 144 set aside. (Paras 3, 4)

(B) Income-tax Act, 1961 - Section 151 - Specified authority for approval - Determination based on time elapsed from end of relevant assessment year, not extended limitation periods under TOLA - Amended provisions post 31.03.2021 mandate Principal Chief Commissioner approval if over three years elapsed - Lower authority approval renders notice invalid ab initio. (Paras 3, 11-12 of cited judgment)

Facts of the case:
Assessee challenged reassessment proceedings for assessment year 2016-17 initiated via notice under section 148A(b) dated 24.05.2021, followed by order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148, culminating in assessment order under section 144. Delay of 139 days in filing appeal condoned. Core issue: approval for section 148A(b) proceedings obtained from Principal Commissioner, Delhi-15, whereas section 151(ii) required Principal Chief Commissioner approval as more than three years had elapsed from end of relevant previous year.

Findings of Court:
Impugned section 148A(b) proceedings, order under section 148A(d), notice under section 148, assessment order, and demand notice quashed for want of proper approval under section 151(ii). Reopening held vitiated following binding precedent of jurisdictional High Court.

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings valid absent approval from specified authority under section 151(ii) when over three years elapsed from end of assessment year; impact of TOLA on determination of approving authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Approval requirements under section 151 strictly apply based on actual time elapsed from end of relevant assessment year under amended law; TOLA time extensions do not modify hierarchy of approving authorities or permit use of lower designated officer - non-compliance fatal to entire proceedings.

Result: Appeal allowed; reopening quashed.

Table of Content
1. condonation of delay in appeal filing. (Para 1 , 2)
2. challenge to section 148a(b) validity due to improper approval. (Para 3)
3. section 148a(d) order quashed for lacking proper s.151 approval. (Para 4)
4. post-3-year reassessment requires principal chief commissioner approval. (Para 5)

ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076992154(1), dated 13.06.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 139 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3. It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned section 148A(b) proceedings herein itself initiated vide notice dated 24.05.2021 in assessment year 2016-17. This is for the precise reason that the learned Assessing Authority had obtained the necessary approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-15, than the prescribed authority under section 151(ii) of the Act i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner or……………………., if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant previous year. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. Faced with this situation, we find that the hon’ble jurisdictional high court in Communist Party of India (Marxist) Vs. Income Tax Department, Circle Exempt 1(1), W.P.(C) No.9031/2023, dated 28th April, 2025 has already settled the instant issue in the assessee’s favour and against the department that the Assessing Officer’s foregoing failure in obtaining proper section 151 approval vitiates the reopening itself as follows:

“2. The petitioner is a national political party and is registered under Section 29A of the Representation of 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 Act 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 Section 148A of the Act. Some of the other High Courts also took a similar view and struck down notices that were issued under Section 148 of the Act after 31.03.2021 but under the unamended provisions relating to the re-assessment of income that had escaped assessment.

4. The Revenue appealed the decisions rendered by various High Courts to the Supreme Court of India. In Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543 - which was one of such appeals arising from the decision of the Allahabad High Court - the Supreme Court delivered its decision on 04.05.2022, whereby it concurred with the view that the amended provisions which came into force after 31.03.2021 would be applicable to notices issued thereafter. However, the Supreme Court also issued certain directions in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court directed that all notices that were issued under Section 148 of the Act after 01.04.2021 till the date of the said decision (04.05.2022), including those that had been set aside by the High Courts, would be construed as show cause notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The Assessing Officers were directed to provide the information

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top