Allowing the petition the Court held that the Principal Commissioner was not the authority under section 151(ii) of the Act and the approval in this case was not by an authority authorized under the law. Therefore, such approval was not sustainable in law and in view thereof the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act and all subsequent proceedings were not sustainable in law.(AY.2016-17)
K. K. Agarwal and Sons (HUF) v. ITO (2023) 457 ITR 638 (Cal)((HC)
S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Sanction-Granted by Principal Commissioner Notice and consequent proceedings is held to be invalid. [S. 148A(b) 148A(d), 151(ii), Art. 226]