TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 2029
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are erroneous and bad in law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Final Order and DRP Directions are barred by limitation provided u/s 153 of the Act and deserves to be held as void-ab-initio, bad in law and time-barred. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not providing the Appellant the requisite order of approval obtained from the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax for initiating reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and be held as invalid. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / Hon. DRP erred in determining the income of Appellant at INR 89,65,506 as against the nil returned income declared by Appellant. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. DRP has grossly erred by failing to independently verify the additional evidences filed by Appellant and by not issuing speaking directions with respect to such. This is a gross violation of section 144C(6) of the Act and the Final Order is bad in law. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gaged in the business of providing "Strategic Lodging Services" to its companies outside lndia which primarily include formulating, managing and guiding global strategies for optimizing lodging supply; developing technology platforms, tools and systems; gathering, analyzing and summarizing data and information related to such lodging opportunities for inclusion on Point of Sale websites (PoS), such websites among others are owned, managed and operated by the other Expedia group entities outside lndia. 4. In the instant appeal the assessee has raised additional ground under Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, with regard to issuance of notice under section 148 having been passed without obtaining approval from any specified authority under section 151 of the Act and has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [229 ITR 383(SC)] (Hon. SC) and Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT[1990] 53 Taxman 85. The additional ground being legal ground is admitted. 5. The learned Counsel stated that for the instant year the order under section 148A(d) of the Act dated 29.04.2022 were passed after obtainin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice under section 148 of the Act shall be taken into account,......These amendments will take effect from the Ist day of April, 2023." 10. It is submitted that Section 151 of the Act (before Finance Act 2023 amendment) clearly provides that where more than three years have lapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority should be Principal Chief Commissioner of Principal Director General (or Chief Commissioner or Director General where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General). In the present case, approval was granted by CIT (IT), Delhi-1 on 28 Apr 2022 (Le., more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year which is not in accordance with section 151 of the Act). This procedural defect is not merely technical but jurisdictional in nature, rendering the reassessment proceedings null and void. The reassessment proceedings. therefore, stand vitiated in their entirety. 11. In this regard, reliance is placed by Ld AR on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Sharma vs. DCIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 916 (Delhi) which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....where the 148 Order has been issued beyond a period of three years. The Hon. High Court further held that the provision u/s 151 of the Act is inserted with effect from 1 Apr 2023 and will not be applicable for AY 2018-19 where the order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 151 of the Act had been issued on 22 Apr 2022. The relevant extract of the judgement is reproduced below for your Honor's kind consideration: "...Petitioner is impugning a notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, both dated 22nd April 2022 and the notice dated 29th March2022 issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. One of the grounds raised is that the sanction to pass the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act is invalid inasmuch as the sanction has been admittedly issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT) and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT). Counsels for Petitioner state this issue is covered by the order dated 6th February 2024 passed by this Courtin the case of Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [Writ Petition No. 2768 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Date Notice Paper book Page No. Applicable Authority 1. 27.03.2022 148A(b) 13-14 The Notice was issued within 3 years from the end of AY 2018-19. 2. 04.04.2022 Reply not submitted 14 Date of compliance given by the AO. 3. 21.04.2022 Reply not submitted 7 Reply to SCN u/s 148A(b) furnished by the assessee 4. 22.04.2022 Extended date of compliance 7 As admitted by the Assessee, the date of compliance for furnishing the reply to 148A(b) notice was extended to 22.04.2022 3rd Proviso to Section 149 applies in this case. The reassessment is within 3 years. 5. 28.04.2022 Approval of the Specified authority From AO The approval was taken from correct and proper sanctioning authority u/s 151 being CIT (Int. Tax), Delhi-1 as the 148A(b) notice for reassessment was issued within 3 years As per 4th Proviso to Section 149 applies to this case. The sanction was within time. Thus, the AO had followed the procedure established by law under the Act. 6. 29.04.2022 148A(d) 36-38 The order u/s 148A(d) was passed by the AO determining that this case was fit for reopening u/s 147/148 7. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more for that year: Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021: Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in a case, where a notice under section 153A, or section 153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021: Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the time to submit reply till 02.04.2022. The hon'ble Court held that by application of 3rd proviso to section 149(1), the time till 02.04.2022 (11 days) allowed by the AO for furnishing of reply, has to be excluded. Therefore, the order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 passed on 07.04.2022 shall be within limitation. The hon'ble Court further held as under: 51. In view of our above conclusion, the plea of Mr. Jain that the order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 have been passed and issued beyond three years, PCCIT/CCIT are competent to take decision to issue notice would not survive as the PCIT and CIT are competent to issue notice within three years, which has been done in this case. It was similarly held in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt Ltd V ITO W.P.(C) 16232/2024 dated 30.01.2025 by the hon'ble Delhi Court. Likewise the hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 4.1., Delhi, W.P.(C) 19738/2025, held that the AO acted within jurisdiction and that the period consumed in granting opportunity under section 148A(b) stands excluded as per 5th proviso of section 149 of the Act of 2024 (corresponding to 4th proviso ....