TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2016-17 whereby the appeal of the assessee against the assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was dismissed. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee on the grounds mentioned in the appeal. 2. The assessee has challenged, inter alia, the addition of Rs. 29,31,965/- on merits, contending that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the sale consideration of shares as unexplained and that the assessee had furnished the relevant documentary evidence, including bank statements. The assessee also disputed the validity of the reassessment proceedings. 3. The ld. AR During the course of hearing before the Tribunal, challenged the validity of the notice issued under se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, and not from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax.It was submitted that in the present case approval had admittedly been granted by the ld. PCIT. 6. In the estimation of the ld. AR, the notice issued by the Revenue was barred by limitation and was also issued by the authority other than the specified authority provided under the Act. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was bad in eyes of law. The ld. AR relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 469 ITR 46 (SC), and particularly upon the subsequent decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Chandigarh Tribunal in Sara Wines, ITA No. 620/CHD/2026, AY 2017-18, order dated 14.08.2026. 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, support....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the end of AY 2016-17 expired. 04/06.2021 Initial notice under the erstwhile section 148 was issued. Exact date is not available in the uploaded CIT(A) order and should be taken from the assessment/reassessment record. 04.05.2022 Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, directing treatment of specified old-regime section 148 notices as deemed notices under section 148A(b), followed by the prescribed procedure. .06.2022 Pursuant to Ashish Agarwal, material/information was furnished and opportunity under section 148A(b) was afforded. Exact date should be inserted from the assessment record. .07.2022 Order under section 148A(d) passed after considering the assessee's respons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Assessing Officer on 12.07.2022. The assessee at page 4 of the written synopsis has given the chronology of events as per which it is clear that the approval was accorded by the PCIT on 04.07.2022 whereas the order u/s 148A (d) was issued on 12.07.2022. 11. Now the question is whether the approval to issue the notice under section 148 could validly have been given by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax on 04.07.2022, or whether, since more than three years had already passed since the end of AY 2016-17, approval was required to be given instead by the higher authority named in section 151(ii). 12. As held by us in Sara wines the authority that must give approval for a notice under section 148 is clearly named in section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel, that the defect in sanction is merely a procedural one, cannot be accepted. The requirement to obtain approval under section 151 is a safeguard that has been built into the law by Parliament, and it must be satisfied before jurisdiction to reopen an assessment can be assumed by the Assessing Officer. Where a particular authority has been named by the statute as the one competent to give such approval, approval given by any other authority cannot be treated as good enough compliance. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer must be derived from the statute itself; it cannot be created by consent, by waiver, or by approval being obtained from an authority not named in the law. 16. No merit is found either in the argument that the later ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is found that the notice under section 148 dated 22.07.2022 was issued more than three years after the end of AY 2016-17, while approval for this notice was obtained only from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax. Because approval was not obtained from the authority named in section 151(ii), the mandatory requirement for valid jurisdiction was not fulfilled. As a result, the notice issued under section 148 dated 22.07.2022 cannot be upheld in law. 19. Once the notice itself under section 148 is held to be invalid, because sanction was not given by the competent authority, the entire reassessment proceedings that are based on it cannot be allowed to continue. So, the assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B on ....