Jurisdictional sanction for reopening under section 148 was defective, making the reassessment notice and order invalid.

A reassessment notice issued under section 148 after more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year required prior sanction from the authority specified in section 151(ii), namely the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, or failing that, the Chief Commissioner or Director General. Because approval was taken from the Principal Commissioner instead, the jurisdictional safeguard was not met. The defect was treated as one going to the root of the reopening power, so the notice and the consequential reassessment order were invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether notice under section 148 issued after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year was valid when prior approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the authority specified under section 151(ii), and whether the resulting reassessment order could be sustained.

Analysis: For Assessment Year 2018-19, the notice under section 148 was issued on 18.04.2022, i.e. after more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In such a case, section 151(ii) required prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, or where such authority was not available, the Chief Commissioner or Director General. The approval in the present case was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which was not the authority competent under section 151(ii) for this time period. The defect went to the root of the jurisdiction assumed for reopening and could not be treated as a mere irregularity.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 and the consequential reassessment order were invalid for want of proper sanction under section 151(ii), and the challenge was accepted in favour of the assessee.

---