TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Surya Ferrous Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1406/Mum/2024 dated 24-12-2024) as well as the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Anurag Pandey vs. ITO (ITA No.3924/Del/2024 dated 09-07-2025) to contend that the specified authority to grant the statutory approval as envisaged u/s 151(ii) would be Ld. Pr. CCIT and not Ld. Pr. CIT. Since no such approval as per the mandate of law has been taken by Ld. AO before passing an order u/s 148A(d) as well as before issuance of notice u/s 148, the reassessment proceedings are bad-in-law. The Ld. AR stated that facts in the present case are pari-materia the same to the facts in the case of Anurag Pandey (supra). The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, referred to CBDT instructions No.1 of 2022 dated 11-05-2022 to support the validity of reassessment proceedings. To counter the same, Ld. AR stated that the instructions could not override the prescription of statutory provisions and when an approval has been envisaged in a specified manner, the same should be obtained in that specified manner only. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 3. From the case records, it emerges that the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 17-02-2025 against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 5. The sole legal ground as urged by Ld. AR is that since the case has been reopened beyond 3 years from the end of relevant Assessment Year (three years for AY 2016-17 expire on 31-03-2020), the specified authority as per Sec.151(ii) competent to grant the requisite approval would be Ld. Pr. CCIT whereas the approval has been taken by Ld. AO from PCIT-1, Rohtak which is not the specified authority in the case of the assessee as per the provisions of Sec. 151(ii) of the Act. 6. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court, in subsequent decision titled as UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal (167 Taxmann.com 70 dated 03-10- 2024), after the fall out of its own decision in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra), dealt with the issue of sanction of the specified authority and concluded that TOLA will extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified u/s.151. As per this decision, the test to determine whether TOLA will apply to Sec. 151 of the new regime would be that if the time limit of three years from the end of the Assessment Year falls between 20-03-2020 and 31-03-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under Section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of AshishAgarwal (supra), after 1 April 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime. The effect of Section 151 of the new regime is thus: (i) If income escaping assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of three years; and (ii) If income escaping assessment is more than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....020 and 31 March 2021, contemplated under Section 3(1) of TOLA. Resultantly, the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30 June 2021. 79. Under Finance Act 2021, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the specified authorities at four stages: a. Section 148A(a) - to conduct any enquiry, if required, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; b. Section 148A(b) - to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving upon them a show cause notice as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued based on the information that suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It must be noted that this requirement has been deleted by the Finance Act 2022;33 c. Section 148A(d) - to pass an order deciding whether or not it is a fit case for issuing a notice under section 148; and d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment notice. 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts "shall be deem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 148; d. TOLA will 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 extended time till 30 June 2021 to grant approval; e. 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 extended time till 31 March 2021 to grant approval; f. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) will extend to all the ninety thousand reassessment notices issued under the old regime during the period 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021; g. The time during which the show cause notices were deemed to be stayed is from the date of issuance of the deemed notice between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 till the supply of relevant information and material by the assessing officers to the assesses in terms of the directio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice is invalid and bad-in-law. This being so, the reassessment proceedings would stand vitiated and liable to be set aside. 8. We find that identical issue has been dealt with by Delhi Tribunal in the cited case of Anurag Pandey. By referring to the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Manish Financial (ITA No. 5050/Mum/2024 dated 02-12-2024) as well as the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Core Logistic Company (WP No.18168 dated 05-06-2025), the bench finally held as under; - 9. Thus, Hon'ble Madras High Court has also held that while issuing notice u/s 148 the ld AO has to obtain prior approval of the specified authority as defined in Section 151 and that in the cases for AY 2016-17 where more than 3 years had elapsed, compliance has to be made to mandate given in Section 151 (ii) of the Act. It has been clearly ruled that any noncompliance to above would render the notices per se, infructuous and therefore to be quashed. 10. We have noted that the facts of the present case are identical to those discussed in the judicial precedents hereinabove. The revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishment. Statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act as w....