TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 951
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principle of natural justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the assessment proceedings initiated by the AO as notice u/s. 148 of the Act is liable to be quashed in the absence of Document Identification Number (DIN) on the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in going ahead with the assessment despite the fact that the proceedings initiated u/s. 148 were in contravention to the provision of section 151 of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in reopening the case of the assessee without possessing the jurisdiction in terms of instruction no. 1/2011 [F.No. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I)], dated 31.1.2011. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 which is bad in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled to appreciate that substitution of provisions by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 was not retrospective in nature but was prospective and only application from financial year 2017-18 relevant to assessment year 2018-19. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessment in this case of the assessee was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 18.5.2023 by making an addition of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 28.5.2025. Against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, assessee in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised the legal ground that a notice u/s. 148 dated 23.4.2021 for the AY 2017-18 was issued to the assessee under the old reassessment tax regime. However, due to the introduction of new reassessment tax regime from 1.4.2021 and in consequence to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC) dated 4.54.2022, information was issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s issued on 23-04-2021 for the A.Y. 2017-18 under the old reassessment tax regime, however due to the introduction of new reassessment tax regime from 01-04-2021 and in the compliance of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Order in the case of Ashish Agarwal notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act information was issued u/s. 148A(b) on 18.5.2022. In response to this, the assessee filed reply on 01.06.2022. It is noted that in the present case the notice u/s. 148 was issued on 26-07-2022 (copy placed in APB Page 16-17) for the A.Y. 2017-18 by obtaining the approval of the Pr. Commissioner, Delhi-01 and consequent order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 26-07-2022 (copy placed at APB Page 13-15) was issued, which is against the law and the proposition laid down by the Apex Court, because the notice was issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, thus in terms of section 151(ii) of the Act the sanction was required to be approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no such authority, Chief Commissioner or Director General or Chief Commissioner, but in this case the approval has been obtained from the Pr. Commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the end of the relevant assessment year Joint Commissioner Section 151(1) of the old regime After expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year Principal 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue are not defeated because the assessing officer could not comply with the pre- conditions due to the difficulties that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 3(1) of TOLA relaxes 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 2017-20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In para 78, the same has been explained by an example taking Assessment Year 2017-18 which also in specific terms mentions that the authority specified u/s. 151(i) of the new regime 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....