TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act is invalid and bad in the eyes of law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs. 25,02,158/- u/s. 69C of the Act, which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that while computing total income in the computation sheet supplied with the assessment order, the Ld. AO has made double addition of Rs. 25,02,158/- resulting in determining total income at Rs. 12,38,20,250/- instead of Rs. 12,13,18,088/-. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act which is invalid and bad in the eyes of law. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act which is invalid and bad in the eyes of law." 3. This appeal is filed with delay of 33 days for which a petition for condonation of delay is filed by the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant realized that appeal against the aforementioned appellate order had not been filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal and promptly arranged for the appeal to be filed on02.04.2026 resulting in a delay of 33 days in filing the said appeal. These facts are confirmed by the Mr. Subhash Agrawal on duly notarized affidavit as enclosed herewith. 9. The appellant respectfully submits that the delay in filing appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional, but has occurred due to bona fide circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. It is pertinent to highlight that the appellant has always been vigilant about it's matters which can be seen from the fact that there was due compliance made before the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). There has been no negligence, inaction, or lack of diligence on the part of the appellant. The delay is attributable solely due to a genuine oversight. 10. It is further submitted that the appellant has a strong case on merits, supported by substantial documentary evidence, and has raised valid and arguable grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the assessing officer as well as on merits of the case. If the delay is not condoned, the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of filing appeals, representations, and other necessary compliances. 5. I say that the appellate order dated 22.12.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19, passed against the reassessment proceedings, was received on the Company's registered email, along with two other orders concerning with same A.Y. 2018-19 relating to the regular assessment and penalty proceedings. The last date for filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal was 28.02.2026. 6. I say that in the interregnum, on account of a medical emergency concerning my mother, I was compelled to travel to my native place at Navalgarh, Rajasthan on 10.02.2026, to look after my aged and ailing mother. I resumed office on 29.03.2026 upon my mother's health showing improvement. I say and affirm that I remained at my native place during the period from 10.02.2026 to 29.03.2026. I further say that on 04.04.2026, my mother's health deteriorated once again, necessitating my return to my village, from where I returned again on 25.04.2026. 7. I say that on account of the aforesaid medical exigency, the act of filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal remained to be carried out on my part. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law and consequently, the reassessment framed u/s. 144B r.w. section 147 of the Act on the basis of the invalid approval and notice under section 148 is also bad in law. 10. Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Undisputedly, the assessment for A.Y. 2018-19 was reopened beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 08.04.2022. Perusal of the notice issued u/s. 148 shows that the approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai, for reopening the assessment. 11. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Alag Property Construction (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT, reported in (2025) 179 taxmann.com 578 (Bom.), held as under: "6. In this factual backdrop, the Petitioner has contended that in the present case, the order passed under section 148A(d) dated 18.08.2022, was passed beyond three years from the end of the relevant A. Y. 2017- 18, and consequently, according to the provisions of section 151(ii) ([i.e. when more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year), the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee 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 or 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 was more than rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of the Taxation and other ne (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 relaxes the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from March 20, 2020 to March 31, 2021. The Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 will accordingly extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under section 151. The test to determine whether Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 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 March 20, 2020 and March 31, 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(i) has an extended time till June 30, 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 March 20, 2020 and March 31, 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(2) has time till March 31, 2021 to grant approval. The time limit for section 151 of the old regime expires on March 31, 2021 because the new regime comes into effect on April 1, 2021....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 151 for section 148A(b) notices. It is well established that this court while exercising its jurisdiction under article 142, is not bound by the procedural requirements of law. (High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2024) 6 SC 267.J) 81. This court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [[2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)(2022) 286 Taxman 183 (SC)[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) 1 SCC 617] directed the Assessing Officers to "pass orders in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each of the assessees concerned". Further, it directed the Assessing Officers to issue a notice under section 148 of the new regime after following the procedure as required under section 148A". Although this court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under section 148A(a) and section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for section 148A(d) and section 148. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....020 (for short "TOLA"), the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime could have granted sanction only till 30th June 2021. 10. On perusal of the order dated 18.08.2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act we find that the aforesaid order was passed after taking approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No.2). Since the aforesaid order was passed, as well as the notice under section 148 was issued, after the expiry of three years from the end of A.Y. 2017-18, as per the substituted provisions of re-assessment, the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the Act (i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner) was required to grant approval. Accordingly, we conclude that in the present case, approval has been obtained from the authority specified under Section 151(i) 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 author....