Reopening invalid where approvals for notices under Section 148 and 148A(d) required from Principal Chief Commissioner per Section 151(ii)

ITAT MUMBAI held that reopening and reassessment were invalid because approval for issuing notice under Section 148 and for order under Section 148A(d) was obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner as required by Section 151(ii) once the three-year period fell within TOLA dates. Non-compliance with Section 148A(d) read with Section 151(ii) deprived the AO of jurisdiction; the notice dated 30/07/2022 and consequent reassessment order dated 25/05/2023 were quashed. Decision for the assessee.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment were:

• Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30/07/2022, was valid and complied with the jurisdictional requirements of Sections 147 to 151 of the Act.
• Whether the approval for issuance of the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) was obtained from the appropriate authority as specified under the new regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.
• The impact of non-compliance with the statutory requirements on the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue a reassessment notice.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the Notice under Section 148

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issuance of a notice under Section 148 is governed by the provisions of Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act. The Finance Act, 2021 introduced a new regime requiring prior approval from specified authorities at various stages of the reassessment process. The Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal was pivotal in clarifying these requirements.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation, emphasizing that the approval from the specified authority is a precondition for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under Section 148. The Tribunal noted that the new regime mandates a higher level of authority for granting sanctions, especially when more than three years have elapsed since the end of the relevant assessment year.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the approval for the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, rather than the higher authority required under the new regime.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal framework established by the Supreme Court to the facts of the case, concluding that the approval was obtained from an incorrect authority, thereby affecting the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides, focusing on the statutory requirements and the Supreme Court's guidance. The Tribunal found the Assessee's argument regarding jurisdictional non-compliance persuasive.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the notice under Section 148 was invalid due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements for obtaining approval from the appropriate authority.

Issue 2: Impact of Non-Compliance on Jurisdiction

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of Sections 148A and 151, which mandates obtaining approval from specified authorities as a jurisdictional precondition.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the failure to comply with the statutory requirements for obtaining approval affects the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue a reassessment notice.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which was not the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the new regime.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the statutory framework and the Supreme Court's interpretation to the facts, determining that the jurisdictional requirements were not met.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the Revenue's arguments but found them unpersuasive in light of the clear statutory requirements and the Supreme Court's interpretation.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the non-compliance with the statutory requirements for obtaining approval rendered the reassessment notice and subsequent proceedings invalid.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The Tribunal quoted the Supreme Court's judgment in Rajeev Bansal, emphasizing that "Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice."

- Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that compliance with statutory requirements for obtaining approval from specified authorities is crucial for the validity of reassessment proceedings.

- Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal quashed the order dated 30/07/2022 under Section 148A(d), the consequential reassessment proceedings, and the order dated 25/05/2023 under Section 147 read with Section 144B, as they were found to be violative of the statutory provisions.

The Tribunal allowed the cross-objection raised by the Assessee and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to jurisdictional non-compliance.

---