TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndering the proceedings bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. That the addition of Rs. 11,67,49,280/- made by Ld. AO and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) on account of unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act 1961 is bad in law since the source of expenditure was explained during the assessment proceedings. 4. Whether the revised provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, applicable from 01-04-2017 can be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of Ld. AO based solely on the basis of the statement recorded u/s 131(1) without conducting any independent investigation. 6.That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. AO both on facts and in law in deciding the quantum of addition on account of bogus purchases without discrediting the corresponding sales making the disallowance arbitrary and unsustainable. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. AO erred in relying upon documents/statements seized from a third party which are not binding on the assessee and cannot form the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the A.Y. 2017-18 and the notice /order was issued on 18-07-2022 after a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment Year, the sanctioning authority should have been Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief commissioner but in this case the approval has been obtained from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, which is not the competent authority to grant the permission. This issue is squarely covered by the Judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Communist Party of India (Maxist) V. CIT(Ex) WP 9031/2023 dated 28- 04-2025 and the case of M/s Genpact India Holdings ITA NO.1527/Del/2024. Reliance is placed on the followings decisions: (i) Deputy Commissioner of Income -tax v. Rudra Buildwell Homes (P.) Ltd.[2025] 178 taxmann.com 55(Delhi-trib) (ii) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-15(3)(2) Mumbai v. Surya Ferrous Alloys Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.1406/MUM/2024 (iii) Ramesh Bachulal Mehta v. Income Tax Officer [2025] 177 taxmann.com 606 (Bombay) (iv)Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle 13-(1) Delhi and Anr. W.P.( C ) 3220/2023 (High Court of Delhi) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....incipal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner of Commissioner Section 151(i) of the new regime Three years or less than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director Section 151(ii) of the new regime More than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner of Director General 74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co-related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old regime: (i) If income escaping assessment was less than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under Section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner, and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xes the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021. TOLA will accordingly extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under Section 151. The test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Section 151 of the new regime is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(i) has an extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval. In the case of Section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, then the specified authority under Section 151(2) has time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval. The time limit for Section 151 of the old regime expires on 31 March 2021 because the new regime comes into effect on 1 April 2021. 78. For example, the three years time limit for assessment year 2017-2018 falls for completion on 31 March 2021. It falls during the time period of 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, contemplated under Section 3(1) of TOLA. Resultantly, the authority spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can grant sanction till 30.06.2021. Thus, while concluding in para 81 on the issue obtaining approval, Hon'ble Court has specifically stated that the Assessing Officer is required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an order u/s. 148A(d) or issuing a notice u/s. 148. According to the Hon'ble Court, though it had waived off the requirement obtaining prior approval u/s. 148A(a) and Section 148Ab, it did not waive the requirement for section 148A(d) and Section 148. 8.2. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the ld. Sr. DR and keeping the same in juxtaposition with the above observations and findings of the Hon'ble Court, we note that the issue we are presently addressing raised before us is not on the aspect of "when" for the procedural compliance for issuance of notice u/s. 148 but on the aspect of "by whom" it ought to have been issued. Ld. Sr. DR has contended that there is hierarchical escalation vis-à-vis obtaining approval for issuing notice u/s. 148. In this respect, Hon'ble Court has very categorically held in para 75 that the prior approval must be obtained from the appropri....