S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Sanction of specified authority-Notice issued beyond three years from end of relevant assessment year-Approval obtained from Pr. CIT instead of Pr. CCIT/CCIT-Invalid assumption of jurisdiction-Reassessment quashed. [S. 144, 147, 148, 148A(d), 151(ii)]
The assessee challenged the reopening for A.Y. 2017-18 on the ground that the notice u/s 148 dated 29.07.2022 (pursuant to order u/s 148A(d) was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year and sanction had been obtained from the Pr. CIT instead of the specified authority i.e., Pr. CCIT/CCIT as mandated under section 151(ii). The Tribunal, after considering the amended provisions of section 151 and relying on the ratio of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and other binding precedents, held that where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant AY, sanction must be accorded by the higher authority prescribed under section 151(ii). Since in the present case sanction was granted by the Pr. CIT and not by the Pr. CCIT/CCIT, the jurisdictional condition precedent was not satisfied. Grant of sanction by the correct specified authority being a sine qua non for valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148, the notice issued was held to be invalid and ab initio void. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed and the grounds on merits were rendered academic. ( ITA No. 6272/Mum/2025 dt. 28 -1 -2026 ( AY. 2017-18 )
Arvindbhai Khatri Sons Designs Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org.
[Coram : Hon’ble Shri Anikesh Banerjee, JM & Hon’ble Shri Prabhash Shankar, AM]