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>Notice under section 148 issued after three years invalid where only section 151(i) approval obtained, reassessment quashed</h1> <h3>Manish Jashwantrai Bhuta Versus ITO Ward-1 (1), Nashik</h3> ITAT PUNE - AT held that notices u/s 148 for A.Y. 2017-18 issued on 20.07.2022 (after three years) required approval u/s 151(ii). AO had obtained only ... Validity of the re-assessment proceedings as no valid approval u/s 151 has been obtained by AO for issuing notice u/s 148 - HELD THAT:- Notices u/s 148 of the Act for carrying out the reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2017-18 has been issued on 20.07.2022. Also the first notice u/s 148A(b) has been issued on 26.05.2022. Therefore the notices u/s 148 has been issued after three years from the end of the Assessment Year. Now since the notice has been issued after three years from the end of A.Y. 2017-18, AO is required to take approval u/s 151 of the Act from Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax and other Officers mentioned in section 151(ii). AO in the instant case has taken the approval from the authorities mentioned in section 151(i) of the Act i.e. from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and such approval is valid only if the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued in less than three years from the end of relevant A.Y. AO has not taken a valid approval as provided in section 151 of the Act and in absence of such valid approval the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and is in violation in provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act. Therefore the initiation of the reassessment proceedings in the instant case is without any jurisdiction -Appeal of the assessee is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether issuance of notice under section 148 read with section 144B is valid where the Assessing Officer obtained approval under section 151(1) instead of the authority specified under section 151(2) when the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 2. Whether the absence of valid prior approval as mandated by section 151(2) renders the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 void for want of jurisdiction. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of approval under section 151 where notice under section 148 is issued after three years Legal framework: Section 148 requires the AO to serve a notice before making reassessment under section 147 and, subject to section 148A, provides that no notice shall be issued unless there is information suggesting income has escaped assessment and the AO has obtained prior approval of the 'specified authority' to issue such notice. Section 151 defines the 'specified authority': (i) Principal CIT/Principal Director/CIT/Director if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief CIT/Principal Director General/Chief CIT/Director General if more than three years have elapsed. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on and followed the reasoning of a High Court decision addressing the identical statutory provisions and time-limit distinction under section 151, which held that approval must be obtained from the authority specified in section 151(ii) where notice is issued beyond three years. Interpretation and reasoning: The statutory scheme draws a clear temporal distinction as to which authority must grant prior approval. Where the notice under section 148 is issued after the three-year period, the plain language of section 151(ii) mandates approval from Principal Chief CIT/Principal Director General/Chief CIT/Director General. Approval from authorities enumerated in section 151(i) is valid only for notices issued within three years. The decision finds that approval obtained from an authority under section 151(i) cannot substitute for the mandatory approval under section 151(ii) when the statutory condition (more than three years elapsed) is satisfied. The fact that the amount involved exceeds the threshold in section 149, which extends the time period beyond three years, reinforces the applicability of section 151(ii). Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the statutory requirement under section 151 is mandatory and jurisdictional as to the identity of the approving authority based on the lapse of time; approval from an incorrect authority (section 151(i) when section 151(ii) applies) invalidates the notice under section 148. Obiter - ancillary references to other judgments relied upon by the parties are noted but the decision primarily follows the cited High Court reasoning on the point. Conclusion: Where a notice under section 148 was issued after the three-year period applicable to the assessment year and the AO obtained approval from an authority specified in section 151(i) instead of the authority specified in section 151(ii), the approval is invalid and the notice is issued without jurisdiction. Issue 2 - Effect of invalid approval on reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 Legal framework: Section 148 is a mandatory precondition to reassessment under section 147; non-compliance with statutory preconditions (including prior approval by the specified authority) affects jurisdiction. The statutory proviso to section 148 conditions issuance of notice on existence of information and prior approval. Precedent treatment: The Court followed precedent holding that absence of valid prior approval in terms of the statutory specification renders the initiation of proceedings without jurisdiction and entitles the assessee to quashment of reassessment. Interpretation and reasoning: Because section 151(ii) prescribes a specific approving authority for notices issued after three years, failure to obtain such approval is not a mere procedural irregularity but a substantive jurisdictional defect. The Court treated the approval obtained from the wrong authority as ineffective to clothe the AO with power to issue the notice. Given that issuance of a valid section 148 notice is a condition precedent to reassessment under section 147, the lack of valid approval vitiates the subsequent assessment order. The Court further observed that where the foundational notice is invalid, consideration of subsequent grounds and additions becomes academic. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - invalid prior approval as per section 151(ii) renders the section 148 notice and ensuing reassessment void for want of jurisdiction; Obiter - discussion of the merits of the remaining grounds becomes unnecessary once jurisdiction is negatived. Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were quashed because the notice under section 148 lacked the mandatory prior approval from the authority specified in section 151(ii), rendering the proceedings without jurisdiction and invalid. Cross-references and consequential holdings Where the notice is quashed for want of jurisdiction due to invalid approval under section 151, any assessments, additions or consequential determinations arising from the reassessment are set aside as academic; appellate consideration of those substantive grounds is not required once jurisdictional invalidity is established.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
