TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'the Act'). 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : "1] The assessee submits that the notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law and accordingly, the reassessment order passed u/s 147 be declared null and void. 2] The assessee submits that the notice issued by the ld. A.O. u/s. 148 dated 15.07.2022 is barred by limitation since the same has been passed subsequent to the surviving time limit prescribed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal and hence, the reassessment Order passed u/s. 147 be declared null and void. 3] The assessee submits that the approval obtained u/s 148/148A (d) is invalid in law and therefore, on this ground also the notice issued u/s 148 is illegal and the asst. o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce seized from third party and accordingly, the said addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- may kindly be deleted. 10] The learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the addition of interest income of Rs. 30,000/- without appreciating that no such interest was received by the assessee and accordingly, the addition made was not justified. 11] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the addition was made by placing reliance on the statement of Shri Sachin Nahar without giving any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the said person and hence, the addition made is not justified and the same may kindly be deleted. 12] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above 3. At the outset,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re than three years, approval has to be taken from Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General. Since in the instant case reopening has been carried out after three years but the approval has been taken from Principal Commissioner and not from Principal Chief Commissioner, therefore, the approval is invalid and renders the reopening proceeding as illegal and bad in law. 6. We further notice that similar issue came for adjudication before this Tribunal in the case of Sanchit Kantilal Ganore Vs. ITO (Supra) and this Tribunal after placing reliance on plethora of judgments including that of judgment passed by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Agnello Oswin Dias Vs. ACIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner of Income or ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. However, in this case, notice has been approved by ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. 5.1 The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the decision of Holiday Developers (P.) Ltd, Vs. ITO [2024] 159 taxmann.com 178 (Bombay) dated 29.01.2024 has held as under : Quote "1. Petitioner is impugning a order under section 148A(d) and the notice, both dated 7th April 2022 passed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act"). Of course Petitioner has also impugned the notice dated 17th March 2022 issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. Various grounds have been raised but one of the primary grounds for challenging the notice under section 148A(d) and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-2019 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 22nd April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151(ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 of the Act has been inserted only with effect from 1st April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand. 5. In the circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.), the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 22nd April 2022 under sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Act ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of provision of Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. In view thereof, the initiation of proceedings itself is without any jurisdiction. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed." Unquote 7.1 Thus, in this case notice u/s.148 dated 29.07.2022 was approved by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and the order u/s.148A(d) was approved by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nashik for A.Y. 2017-18, which is after the lapse of three years from the end of Assessment Year. Therefore, as per section 151, the Authority to approve is Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax/Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Thus, Section 151 has been violated in this case. Therefore, respectfully following the Hon'ble High Courts(supra) and Hon'ble ....