TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. Assessee has raised various ground on merit as well legal in the revised grounds of appeal. However, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2016-17 deserves to be quashed as proper approval u/s.151 of the Act has not been taken from the prescribed authority prior to issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. He submitted that for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act beyond three years from the end of the assessment year in the instant case ld. Assessing Officer was required to get approval u/s.151 of the Act from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, however, ld. Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 14.07.2022 with the approval of Principal Commissioner of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act and has contended that for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act beyond three years from the date of relevant assessment, ld. Assessing Officer is required to take approval from the Principal Chief commissioner of Income Tax. 6. I find that under similar set of facts this Tribunal in the case of Santosh Jaynarayan Sharma Vs. ITO (supra) has dealt on the very same issue observing as follows : "5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 filed on 17.03.2018 declaring income of Rs. 20,31,900. Ld. Assessing Officer based on the information about explained cash credit/investment amounting to Rs. 45,76,025 h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r) was required to grant approval. Accordingly, we conclude that in the present case, the approval has been obtained from the authority specified under Section 151(1) of the new regime instead of the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the new regime. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case has drawn an illustration in para 78 of its order in the context of A.Y. 2017-18 (which is also the relevant Assessment year in the present Writ Petition) wherein it is categorically held that the authority specified under section 151(1) can accord sanction only upto 30.06.2021. This illustration makes it absolutely clear that when the period of three years from end of relevant Assessment Year expired between 20.03.2020 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the assessee's case also notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued after three years and the proper course of action for issuing valid notice u/s.148 of the Act was to get approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. However, in the instant case, the approval has been taken from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Respectfully following the above judicial binding precedent, we are inclined to hold that proper approval u/s.151 of the Act has not been taken and therefore the notice u/s.148 of the Act is invalid and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee in the Cross Objection is allowed." 7. In light of above decision, I hold that the notice u/s.148 of the Act is invalid and deserves....