TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Principal Commissioner lacks authority to approve reassessment proceedings under section 151 - only Chief Commissioner or Director General can approve</h1> <h3>M/s Essel Housing Projects Private Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-20, New Delhi.</h3> ITAT Delhi held that reassessment proceedings were invalid due to lack of proper approval under section 151. The approval was granted by Principal ... Validity of reassessment proceedings - competent authorities to grant the approval - as alleged no valid approval for the purpose of section 151 - Scope of old regime - HELD THAT:- Prior approval of Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General and where these two authorities are not there, then, the Chief Commissioner or Director General are competent authorities to grant the approval. However, in the case in hand, such approval of these competent authorities have not been taken and the copy of notice on record shows that the approval has been accorded by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, New Delhi on 27.07.2022 which seems to have been as per the old regime. Thus, we are inclined to sustain the ground no.4 in impugned order for in AY 2017-18. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. Summary: Appeals concern AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18 against CIT(A) orders. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal found that although notices were recorded as issued, 'the manner of issuance of notices and an opinion on due service to the knowledge of the assessee is not recorded.' The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, the CIT(A) order is set aside, and the matter is directed to be decided afresh after giving due notice of hearing to the assessee. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal addressed issuance of an order under section 148A(d) and a subsequent notice under section 148 after the three-year period. Citing Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (supra), the Tribunal reproduced the holding that: 'the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under Section 148.' The approval on record was from an authority under the old regime (Principal Commissioner), not the competent authority under Section 151; accordingly the assessment for AY 2017-18 is quashed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
