TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... together for the purpose of hearing and adjudication. 2. At the outset, we note that in ITA.No. 535/Viz./2025 and in appeal ITA.No. 17/Viz./2026 there was a delay of 95 and 68 days in filing the present appeals before the Tribunal. In ITA.No. 535/Viz./2025 the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the cause of delay. The assessee has stated that in the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) in Form-35 his counsel's email-ID was given. Therefore, he was not having the knowledge of hearing of the appeal before the learned CIT(A) and only in the month of March, 2025 he received a call from the department for payment of outstanding dues. Thereafter, immediately the assessee consulted a Senior Counsel for filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and in the process there was a delay of 95 days. The Learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and denial of opportunity to be heard would cause serious hardship and injustice. He accordingly, pleaded that the delay of 95 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal may please be condoned and appeal of the assessee be a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issues are raised by the assessees in all these five appeals therefore, for the purpose of recording the facts and issues, the appeal in ITA.No. 248/Viz./2025 for the assessment year 2018-2019 is taken as "lead" case. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. "That under the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act dt: 28/12/2023 that was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC vide order passed u/s 250 of the IT Act dt: 13.03.2025 is not in accordance with facts of the case and provisions of law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in disregarding the appellant's claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, on the ground that the return was not filed u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, without appreciating that the claim was made in the return filed u/s 148 of the IT Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of Sec 80AC of the IT Act are directory in nature and that the claim of benefit u/s 80P(2)(a)(i), this being an incentive provision, ought to be interpreted liberally. 4. The appellant submits that for these and other reasons to be urged during the hearing, the orders passed u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al if for adjudication of the issue does not require any verification and investigation of any fact or record as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT (supra). Accordingly, the additional ground raised by the assessee is admitted for adjudication. Since the issue raised by the assessee is legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter therefore, we first take up the additional ground raised by the assessee for hearing and adjudication. 10. An identical ground has been raised in all the other four appeals. Accordingly, in view of our finding in appeal ITA.No. 248/Viz./2025, the additional ground raised by the assessees in other four appeals are also admitted for hearing and adjudication. 11. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the approval of PCIT, Visakhapatnam-1 is taken before issuing the notice u/sec.148 of the Act. He has also referred to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer placed at in the paper book and submitted that the Assessing Officer has again referred to the same Authority regarding the necessary satisfaction/approval. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Specified Authority as per sec.151(ii) of the Act is Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Act/ Director General of Income Tax but not PCIT in case where the notice is issued after 03 years from the end of the assessment year. In all the five cases before us, the notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 are beyond three years from the end of the assessment year therefore, the approval granted by the PCIT is invalid and not in accordance with the provisions of sec.151(ii) of the Act. The Competent Authority is based on the timing of the issuance of notice u/sec.148 of the Act and not the timing of granting approval by the Authority. In case where the approval is taken before expiry of 03 years from the end of the assessment year but the notice is issued by the Assessing Officer after 03 years then, the said notice cannot be considered as a valid notice being issued after 03 years from the end of the assessment year for want of proper approval. In such a situation, the Assessing Officer ought to have taken a fresh approval from the Specified Authority prescribed u/sec.151 of the Act. An identical issue has been considered by the Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Deloi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 148 have been issued on 07.04.2022 relatable to the relevant Assessment Year 201819 i.e., after more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The approval before passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and before issuing of notice under Section 148 of the Act has been taken from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax by the respondent No.1, which is permissible only if three years or less than three years have lapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the present case, the relevant three years lapsed on 31.03.2022. Therefore, the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Director General was required to be obtained before passing of the order under Section 148A(d) or before issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. 50. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the proviso to Section 151 of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2023 with effect from 01.04.2023 quoted above to contend that the period of seven days furnished to the assessee to submit reply to the notice under Section 148A(b) issued on 23.03.2022 has to be excluded for co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rivate Limited vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Civil Writ Petition No. 4061 of 2024, dated 25/09/2025. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Deloitte Consulting India Private Limited vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (supra), as under: "48. The proviso to Section 151 has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2023 with effect from 01.04.2023. The relevant Section 151 with its proviso is applicable to the case of the petitioner is quoted hereunder: 151. Sanction for issue of notice:- Specified authority for the purposes of Section 148 and Section 148A shall be,- (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year: Provided that the period of three years for the purposes of clause (i) shall be computed after taking....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endment cannot be assumed unless specifically expressed in the provision enacted by the legislature. Therefore, the reopening of assessment without sanction/approval of the specified authority in accordance with Section 151 of the Act was bad in law. Consequently, reassessment order dated 16.01.2024 also is bad in law." (emphasis supplied by us) 15. We find that the Hon'ble High Court in its aforesaid order had not only observed that in the case of the assessee before them ie., for AY 2018-19, the specified authority for granting approval under section 151 of the Act was the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General as a period of more than three years had lapsed from the end of the relevant Assessment Year, but had also rejected the claim of the revenue that the "proviso" to section 151 of the Act as had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2023 w.e.f. 01/04/2023 was to be given a retrospective effect. 16. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observation, concur with the Ld. AR that in the present case before us for A.Y. 2018-19, wherein notice under Section 148 of the Act was ....