2026 (9) TMI 262

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., challenging the validity of reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act, as also on merits. One of the grounds raised by the assessee is on the validity of notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act due to lack of proper approval. It is the case of the assessee that though more than three years have expired from the end of the relevant assessment year, however, the approval u/s. 151 of the Act was granted by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, as against Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, in terms with Section 151(ii) of the Act. In our view, the aforesaid legal and jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee goes to the root of the matter, hence, has to be addressed at the very outset. 3. Undisput....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....39;ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Anil Gupta (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO 185 taxmann.com 239 (Bom) which is for the very same assessment year. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court while deciding identical issue has held as under: 9. In the present case, the period of three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17 fell for completion on 31 st March 2020. Since the expiry date fell during the time period of 20 th March 2020 and 31st March 2021 contemplated under Section 3(1) of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (for short "TOLA"), the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime could have granted sanction till 30 th June 2021. On a perusal of the order date....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roval of Respondent No.4 who is not the authority as prescribed under Section 151(ii). 11. Non-compliance by Respondent No.1 with the provisions contained in Section 151(ii) vitiates the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1 to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act. 12. We are clearly of the view that the present matter stands covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra). We accordingly hold that the order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice issued under Section 148 also dated 30.07.2022, are bad in law for being violative of the provisions of Section 151(ii) of the Act. Hence they are required to be quashed a....