Statutory approval by the specified authority is essential for reassessment; approval by another authority can invalidate proceedings.

Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where non-receipt of notices and surrounding circumstances show that the delay was not deliberate, reflecting the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technical objections. The notes state that reassessment under section 148A(d) requires approval from the specified competent authority and within the applicable statutory timeframe. Approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner, and sought beyond three years from the end of the assessment year, is described as a jurisdictional defect going to the root of the proceedings. The reassessment is therefore presented as invalid and a nullity, with remaining issues becoming academic.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned. (ii) Whether the reassessment was invalid for want of approval by the competent authority under section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently a nullity.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the appeal was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was explained by reference to non-receipt of notices and the surrounding factual circumstances. Applying the principle that substantial justice should prevail over technical objections where the delay is not deliberate, the request for condonation was accepted.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment was invalid for want of approval by the competent authority under section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and consequently a nullity.

Analysis: The approval for the order under section 148A(d) was found to have been obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, and it was also noted to have been sought beyond three years from the end of the assessment year. On that basis, the reassessment was held to suffer from a legal infirmity going to the root of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The approval was held invalid and the reassessment proceedings were treated as a nullity in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was entertained on merits after condonation of delay, and the reassessment was struck down on a jurisdictional defect, leaving the remaining grounds academic.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory approval is required from a specified authority for reopening or reassessment, approval from a different authority renders the action legally invalid and void.

---