TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id approval/sanction may kindly be annulled. a) Reliance placed on Bombay HC Holiday Developers (P.) Ltd, 159 taxmann.com 178 b) Bombay HC in case of Gigantic Mercantile (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 165 taxmann.com 646 c) PUNE ITAT in Rajaram Jaju ITA 1882/PUN/2024 dated 07/03/2025 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 02.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 6,79,450/-. The case of the assessee was reopened by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) on the basis of information in his possession. In view of the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal vide Civil Appeal No.3005 of 2022, order dated 04.05.2022, a notice u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 30.05.2022 was issued to the assessee asking him to explain as to why notice u/s 148 of the Act should not be issued in this case. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the JAO passed the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 26.07.2022. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26.07.2022 thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../ NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 26.07.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18, copy of which is placed at page 1 of the paper book was issued after obtaining the prior approval of the PCIT, Nashik. The said notice reads as under: 9. We find since the notice has been issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 151, the competent authority for granting the approval for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. Since the approval in the instant case has been granted by the PCIT instead of any of the above authorities, therefore, such approval being not in accordance with law, the re-assessment proceedings are invalid. 10. We find an identical issued had come up before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Karia Builders vs. ITO (supra) where the Tribunal has observed as under: "21. Even otherwise also, a perusal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll be,- (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year:] [Provided that the period of three years for the purposes of clause (i) shall be computed after taking into account the period of limitation as excluded by the third or fourth or fifth provisos or extended by the sixth proviso to sub-section (1) of section 149.] 24. Since the notice has been issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 151, the competent authority for granting the approval for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. Since the approval in the instant case has been granted by the PCIT instead of any of the above authorities, therefore, such approval being not in accordance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of clause (i) of Section 151 of the Act. As in the present case the assessment year in question is 2016-17 and the impugned notice itself has been issued on 30 July, 2022, it is issued after a period more than 3 years having elapsed from the end of the said assessment year, hence, clause (ii) of Section 151 of the Act was applicable, which required the sanction to be issued by either Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. 10. As rightly pointed out at the bar, such issue fell for consideration of the Division Bench of this Court in Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein the Division Bench considered the provisions of Section 151 of the Act read with the provisions of Section 148A(b), the latter provision clearly providing that prior to issuance of any notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessing officer shall provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee only after considering the cumulative effect of Section 148A(b) read with Section 151 of the Act a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he various other decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee also supports his case to the proposition that the improper approval obtained u/s 151 of the Act vitiates the entire reopening proceedings. We, therefore, hold that the re-assessment proceedings being not in accordance with law, have to be quashed." 11. Since admittedly in the instant case the approval has been granted by the PCIT instead of Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, therefore, such approval being not in accordance with law is not a valid approval. Therefore, such improper approval obtained u/s 151 of the Act vitiates the re-assessment proceedings. We, therefore, hold that the re-assessment proceedings being not in accordance with law, has to be quashed. We accordingly quash the re-assessment proceedings. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee challenging the re-assessment proceedings is accordingly allowed. 12. Since the Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press the remaining grounds, we dismiss the these grounds as 'not pressed'. The appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly partly allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed....