Allowing the petition, the Court held that where the Assessing Officer issued reopening notice to assessee beyond period of four years after obtaining necessary sanction of Additional Commissioner, since approval for issuance of said notice ought to have been obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in terms of section 151, impugned notice was quashed. The Court also held that there had been breach of the provisions of section 144B(1)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 since no draft assessment order was issued to the assessee. Accordingly the final assessment order dated March 25, 2022 passed in violation of the provisions of section 144B was also quashed and set aside (AY. 2015-16)
Rinku R. Rai v. ITO [2023] 151 taxmann.com 478 / 454 ITR 33 (Bom)(HC)
S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-After the expiry of four years – Sanction obtained from Additional Commissioner not from Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner-Notice was quashed-Faceless Assessment-Mandatory condition-Draft Assessment order-Condition not complied with-Final assessment order was quashed and set aside. [S. 144B(1)(xvi), 147, 148, Art. 226]