Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the sanction for issuance of an order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is valid for reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years for AY 2018-19.
Analysis: For reassessment notices issued beyond a period of three years, the statutory scheme requires the sanctioning authority specified by Section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proviso to Section 151 relied upon by the Revenue was inserted with effect from 1 April 2023 and is not applicable to actions taken in April 2022. The impugned order dated 5 April 2022 and the notice dated 6 April 2022 record that sanction was accorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-5, rather than by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as required for reassessments beyond three years. The sanction therefore suffers from a jurisdictional defect. The petitioner was also unlawfully denied a copy of the sanction, and respondents were directed to supply the approval form and sanction to the petitioner within one week.
Conclusion: The sanction issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is invalid; the impugned order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 are quashed and set aside, in favour of the assessee.