TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 932
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the relevant assessment year was 31 March 2012 and six years therefrom expires on 31 March 2018 and the issuance date of foundational notice under section 148 itself showing 19th August 2018 on the registered e-portal of the assessee which is apparently time barred and consequently the impugned assessment order is void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of material on record the authority below erred in not appreciating that the impugned assessment order is based on alleged foundational notices u/s 148 dated 23.03.2018 which is nonest as the same has been issued without quoting the PAN of the assessee despite the fact that on the alleged date of issuance PAN Number of assessee was available on record and consequently the impugned assessment order deserves to be quashed as it is void ab initio and it has no legs to stand in the eyes of law. 4. The authority below in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of material on record even erred in not appreciating that once an alleged foundational notice under section 148 dated 23.03.2018 (Without PAN) as mentioned in the impugned ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anything whether the proper sanction in accordance with the provision of law was procured in respect of each alleged foundational notice under section 148 dated 23.03.2018. 9. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of material on record the authority below erred in not appreciating that in the instant case even the alleged foundational notice under section 148 dated 23.03.2018 (without PAN) has not been issued in the desired format containing the reasons along with detalls concerning sanction of the specified authority as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide the case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the authority below erred in not appreciating that in the instant proceedings the satisfaction of the A.O recorded before issuance of alleged notice u/s 148 is totally based on borrowed satisfaction on account of the fact that for A.Y 2011-12 no proceedings was pending concerning the assessee and therefore, for the purpose of enquiry notice under section 133(6) dated 29.01.2018 (even without PAN) was issued without obtaining the approval of the prescribed authority as required ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... barred by limitation and consequently the assessment framed pursuant to such notice is bad in law and void ab initio. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO in the impugned assessment order though refer to the notice dated 23.03.2018 u/s. 148, received notice u/s. 148 only on 19.08.2018 which is apparently time barred. 4. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in the instant case as per the impugned assessment order the alleged figure of escapement is more than 1 lac and, therefore, as per the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act the foundational u/s. 148 of the Act was liable to be issued within the maximum period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, for the A.Y. 2011-12 the last date for issuance of notice u/s. 148 was dated 31.03.2018 and as per registered E-portal of the assessee the issuance date of foundational notice is 19.08.2018 which is apparently time barred. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submits that notice u/s. 148 of the Act could not be issued within the period of limitation. The impugned assessment order framed has legal validity as the condition precedent for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act within the stipulated tim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Additional/ PCIT submitted that the approval was obtained from both the authorities i.e. Addl. CIT as well as the PCIT u/s. 151 of the Act placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SLP's Siddhartha Ltd. reported in 345 ITR 223. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Hon'ble High Court held that when sanction of Joint Commissioner is required obtaining sanction from Commissioner is valid. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Hon'ble High Court held that satisfaction of one authority cannot be substitute by satisfaction another authority. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd. 189 ITD 450. 8. Heard rival submissions perused the orders of the authorities below. Coming to the additional grounds raised by the assessee we find that sanction u/s. 151 was granted by both Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax as well as PCIT which is as under :- 9. It is the contention of the assessee that both the authorities as well as PICT granted sanction, therefore, such sanction is against the provisions of u/s. 151 of the Act. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act was not provided to the assessee along with the reasons recorded despite assessee asking the same in writing before the Id. AO. This, in our considered opinion, is against the settled principles of natural justice as reopening of an assessment is an extraordinary power available to the Id. AO and it should not be done in a cavalier manner. That is why the legislature in its wisdom had put lot of restrictions by imposing conditions for seeking approval and sanction from a superior officer in terms of section 151 of the Act. Hence the said approval obtained from competent authority ought to have been furnished by the id. AO along with the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee. Moreover, in the instant case, the approval of both Additional CIT as well as Id. PCIT had been obtained by the Id. AO in terms of section 151 of the Act as is evident in the statutory proforma enclosed by the Id. DR before us. Since the reopening in the instant case had been done beyond 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval and sanction ought to have been granted only by Id. PCIT alone. Hence this is a case where satisfaction of Id Additional CIT is also obt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) r.w. 147 based on such invalid notice is bad in law and void ab initio. Thus, the assessment framed by the AO is quashed. Since as the assessment is quashed on additional legal ground all other grounds on merit need not be adjudicated as they become only academic in nature and therefore, they are left open. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2026. ============= Document 1 Form for recording the reasons for initiating proceedings under section 148 of the I.T.Act for obtaining the approval of the Addl. Commissioner of Income tax / Pr. Commissioner of Income reasons for initiating obtaining the approval of the Addl. Commissioner tax or of CBDT. 1 of Income tax / Pr. Commissioner of Income Name & address of the assessee Sh. [SME/M/S ASHOK KUMAR S/O SHER SINGH , MEERUT, VILLAGE NAGLI AZAMABAD, MEERUT- 250001 2 PAN/GIR No. 3 Status Individual 4 District /Circle/ Range Ward-1(1), Meerut 5 Asst. Year 2011-12. 6 The quantum of income which have escaped assessment Rs. 9158000/- 7 Whether the provisions of section 147(a) or 1....