Tax Reassessment Order Invalidated: Single Approval Across Multiple Years Quashed Under Section 148B Procedural Grounds

AT quashed combined approval under Section 148B for reopening tax assessments across multiple years. The tribunal found the single approval order for three assessees covering six assessment years invalid, citing judicial precedents mandating independent consideration for each assessment year. Consequently, all impugned assessments for 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 were invalidated without examining substantive merits.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Appellate Tribunal in this batch of appeals involving three assessees for multiple assessment years were:

• Whether the impugned assessments framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were validly initiated and sustained, particularly focusing on the validity of the combined approval accorded under Section 148B for reopening assessments for multiple assessment years.
• Whether the combined approval under Section 148B dated 09.06.2023, covering six assessment years for the three assessees, was legally sustainable in light of recent judicial precedents.
• Subsidiarily, if the assessments were valid, the appeals raised merit-based contentions, but these were not adjudicated due to the primary issue of validity of reopening.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Validity of Combined Approval under Section 148B for Reopening Assessments

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act empowers the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment if there is reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Section 148B provides procedural safeguards requiring prior approval from prescribed authorities before issuing notice for reopening assessments for multiple years. The validity of such combined approvals has been scrutinized in recent judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal relied heavily on authoritative decisions including:

• PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 163 taxman.com 9 (Del)
• PCIT Vs. MDLF Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2024) 166 taxmann.com 327 (Del.)
• ACIT Vs. Serajuddin and Co. (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC)

These decisions established that combined approval under Section 148B for reopening assessments for multiple assessment years in a single order is not sustainable unless each year is considered separately and independently on its own merits.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The Tribunal observed that the prescribed authority had accorded a combined approval dated 09.06.2023 for six assessment years involving the three assessees. This approach was inconsistent with the binding precedents cited above, which mandate that each assessment year must be independently examined and approved for reopening. The combined approval failed to meet the statutory requirements and procedural safeguards intended under Section 148B.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The Tribunal examined the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) and the approval order under Section 148B. The approval was found to be a single consolidated order covering multiple years and multiple assessees, lacking individualized reasoning or consideration for each year. This procedural lapse was determinative.

Application of Law to Facts:

Applying the legal principles from the cited precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the combined approval was legally untenable. Since the reopening itself was invalid, the assessments framed pursuant to such reopening notices were also invalid.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

Though the Department presumably argued for the validity of the combined approval and the assessments, the Tribunal did not find these arguments persuasive in light of the binding precedents. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the assessments or other contentions raised by the assessees, as the primary issue of reopening validity was dispositive.

Conclusions:

The Tribunal held that the combined approval under Section 148B dated 09.06.2023 was not sustainable, rendering all assessments framed on 24.05.2023 and 09.06.2023 for assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 invalid. Consequently, all appeals were allowed by quashing the impugned assessments.

Merits of the Assessments

Since the Tribunal quashed the assessments on the ground of invalid reopening, all other pleadings on merits were rendered academic and were not adjudicated.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal's crucial legal reasoning is encapsulated in the following verbatim excerpt:

"It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned assessments itself as the learned prescribed authority herein had accorded its combined approval u/s 148B dated 09.06.2023 for six assessment years involving these three assessees, which has already been held as not sustainable going by PCIT Vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 163 taxman.com 9 (Del), PCIT Vs. MDLF Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2024) 166 taxmann.com 327 (Del.) and ACIT Vs. Serajuddin and Co. (2024) 163 taxmann.com 118 (SC). That being the case, I adopt the judicial consistency to quash all these assessments framed on 24.05.2023 and 09.06.2023 in all these assessee's appeals pertaining to assessment years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, respectively."

Core principles established include:

• Combined approval under Section 148B for reopening assessments for multiple years and multiple assessees in a single order is not valid unless each year is independently considered.
• The validity of reopening is a threshold issue that must be determined before adjudicating the merits of the assessment.
• Failure to comply with procedural safeguards under Section 148B vitiates the reopening and renders the assessment void.

Final determinations on the issues were:

• The combined approval under Section 148B dated 09.06.2023 was invalid.
• The assessments framed pursuant to such invalid reopening notices for AYs 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 for the three assessees were quashed.
• All appeals were allowed on this ground, and other contentions were left undecided as academic.

---