TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1940
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued under Section 148 dated 31.05.2021 itself was invalid and bad in law in as much as it was issued after obtaining the approval of the JCIT which was not the correct authority to grant approval under Section 151 (as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from 1-4-2021) when four years had already elapsed from the end of the assessment year consideration. Under Consequentially, the Assessing Officer has erred in treating such an invalid notice as a notice deemed to have been issued under Section 148A(b) by wrongly applying the SC's decision in the case of UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64. 2. On the facts and circumstances of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to have appreciated that the appellant was not a party to the writ petition filed before any High Court challenging the notice issued under Section 148 on 31.05.2021 without complying with the requirements of the amended provisions and, therefore, the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC) under Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot be applied to the appellant's case. 6. The Learned CIT has erred in making the additions of sale proceeds from sale of script Goenka Financial Business and Ltd. through Registered Stock exchange amounting to Rs. 89,04,471/- treating the same as Penny script with respect to section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....17 and the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.07.2022 which is at Paper Book page No. 2 and the said notice was issued after seeking approval from PCIT as is depicted in the last para of notice which is at Paper Book page No. 13. Since the period of three years from the end of the financial year has elapsed on 31.03.2020 therefore no notice could have been issue after the said date after seeking approval from PCIT and in this regard we rely upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Monish Financial (supra) and the operative portion is reproduced herein below: 14. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. In assessee's case for AY 2016-17 pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fact is not contravened by the Id DR. For AY 2016-17, the period of three years have elapsed as of 31.03.2020 and the notice is issued beyond three years on 30.07.2022. Therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the approval should have been obtained under the amended provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act i.e. the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner whereas the approval has been obtained from Pr.CIT as stated in the notice under section 148 itself. Therefore we see merit in the contention of the assessee that the notice under section 148 for AY 2016-17 is issued without obtaining the prior approval from the appropriate authority. Accordingly we hold that the notice under section ....