Notice under Section 148 issued after three years invalid without prior approval under Section 151(ii); assessment quashed

ITAT JAIPUR held that a notice under section 148 issued after the three-year period required prior approval from the specified authority (PCCIT/PDG/CCIT/DGIT) under section 151(ii). The assessing officer failed to obtain such approval, rendering the notice bad in law. Relying on higher-court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the notice issued under section 148 and the consequential assessment order.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the order under section 148A(d) and the notice under section 148 (reopening) issued after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year are valid where prior sanction under section 151 of the Income-tax Act was obtained from an authority other than that specified by the amended section 151.

2. Whether the reassessment notice issued under the new regime is time-barred under the "surviving time" principle as explained by the higher court and by operation of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act (TOLA) and related directions (including treatment of earlier notices as deemed show-cause notices and computation of surviving period).

3. Whether the ex parte assessment framed under section 147 read with the assessment-making provisions is sustainable once jurisdictional preconditions (proper sanction under section 151 and/or limitation) are found not to have been complied with.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of sanction under section 151 (who may grant sanction) when reopening is after three years

Legal framework: Amended section 151 distinguishes the specified authority by reference to whether three years or less, or more than three years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Prior approval of the authority specified in section 151 is a jurisdictional precondition for issuance of a notice under section 148 after following section 148A(d).

Precedent treatment: Higher court rulings (applying the post-amendment scheme and the transitional directions that treated earlier notices as deemed show-cause notices) have held that Ashish-era procedural relaxations did not waive the requirement of obtaining sanction under section 148A(d) and section 148 and that sanction must be obtained from the authority identified by amended section 151 applicable to the elapsed period. Multiple coordinate tribunal and high-court decisions (followed in the judgment) have applied this principle to quash reopenings where sanction was obtained from an improper authority.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court notes that the statutory scheme ties the identity of the sanctioning authority directly to the temporal gap between the end of the assessment year and the date of issuing the notice. For reopenings occurring beyond three years, section 151(ii) prescribes a higher level of authority. The purpose of section 151 - to curb mechanical reopenings and protect taxpayers from harassment - supports strict compliance with the prescribed hierarchy. Reliance on transitional measures (TOLA) only extends the time within which the specified authority may act; it does not alter which authority is competent to grant sanction. Consequently, a sanction obtained from an authority not specified by section 151(ii) (where that sub-section applies) does not satisfy the jurisdictional precondition and renders the subsequent order/notice invalid.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - jurisdictional nature of section 151 sanction and mandatory requirement that sanction be obtained from the authority specified by the regime applicable to the time-gap (i.e., section 151(ii) when more than three years have elapsed). Obiter - illustrative discussion of TOLA's purpose and examples of timeline application.

Conclusions: Where the reopening notice under the new regime was issued after more than three years, but approval was obtained from an authority lower than that prescribed by section 151(ii), the sanction was invalid; the notice under section 148 and consequent reassessment proceedings are void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

Issue 2 - Limitation and the "surviving time" principle under TOLA and deemed show-cause notices

Legal framework: TOLA extended certain time limits falling between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021; higher-court directions treated reassessment notices issued within the extended window as deemed show-cause notices under the new section 148A(b). The "surviving time" doctrine requires computing the residual time available to the assessing officer to issue a fresh section 148 notice after considering the period excluded by the deemed-stay, the 30-day supply of information/material and the two-week response period (and any permitted extensions), and mandates that reassessment notices must be issued within that surviving period.

Precedent treatment: Higher-court reasoning (as considered and applied by multiple tribunals) requires calculation of the surviving time from the date of the deemed notice to 30 June 2021 and then from receipt of the assessee's reply (or expiry of reply time) to determine the remaining days available for the AO to issue a section 148 notice under the new regime. Reopening beyond that surviving period has been held time-barred and invalid.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court applies the surviving-time computation: issuance of an extended/old-regime notice created a legal fiction that stayed the clock; after supply of material and the assessee's reply (or lapse of reply time), the AO was required to issue his order under section 148A(d) and, if fit, a section 148 notice within the balance of the period that survived under TOLA. If the AO issues the section 148 notice after expiry of that surviving period, limitation is fatal to jurisdiction. The Court emphasizes that the legal fiction created by deeming earlier notices to be show-cause notices must be given full effect - including limiting the time within which the AO can complete the remainder of the process.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - reassessment notices issued beyond the surviving time made available by TOLA and the deemed-show-cause-notice doctrine are time-barred and invalid. Obiter - examples of calculating surviving days and exclusion periods.

Conclusions: If the AO issues a section 148 notice after the surviving time (computed in accordance with the higher-court directions and TOLA), the notice is barred by limitation and is void; consequent proceedings must be quashed. Where the record shows the notice was issued beyond that surviving period, the reopening is time-barred.

Issue 3 - Effect of defective jurisdictional preconditions on ex parte assessment

Legal framework: Jurisdiction to reopen under section 147/148 flows from valid issuance of a section 148 notice and compliance with section 148A(d) and section 151 where applicable; absence of jurisdictional preconditions (wrong sanctioning authority or time-bar) renders subsequent assessment actions without jurisdiction.

Precedent treatment: Courts and tribunals have consistently held that assessments framed pursuant to invalid notices (because of lack of proper sanction or expiry of surviving time) must be quashed; once jurisdictional defect is established, merits of additions need not be adjudicated and remain open for fresh proceedings (if any valid proceedings can be initiated).

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treats the two jurisdictional defects (improper sanction and limitation) as interconnected and dispositive. Because jurisdiction was not validly assumed, the ex parte assessment cannot stand regardless of the substance of the addition; the object of procedural safeguards (sanction hierarchy and time limits) is to prevent unwarranted exercise of power - a defect in assumption of jurisdiction is fatal to the assessment.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - ex parte assessments predicated on invalid section 148 notices or defective sanction are void; the Court need not adjudicate on substantive grounds of additions when jurisdiction is absent. Obiter - observations on opportunity to the assessee and appellate responses are ancillary.

Conclusions: The ex parte assessment framed under section 147 (read with the relevant assessment provisions) is quashed where it is founded on a section 148 notice issued without jurisdictional sanction or beyond the surviving time; other substantive grounds remain open for consideration in any validly initiated future proceedings.

Cross-references and final disposition

All issues are interrelated: failure to obtain sanction from the authority specified by the regime applicable to the time gap (issue 1) and issuance of the section 148 notice beyond the surviving time (issue 2) each independently vitiate jurisdiction and require quashing of the assessment (issue 3). The Court therefore quashes the section 148 notice/order and the consequential assessment; substantive additions were not adjudicated in view of the jurisdictional conclusion and remain open.

---