AMAN GUPTA,CHENNAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, LTU CHENNAI, CHENNAI

ITA 2565/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the validity of notices issued under sections 148 and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reassessment of the income of Shri Aman Gupta for the assessment year 2016-17. The primary legal contention was whether the notices were validly issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) or should have been issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) following the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022. Additionally, it was contested whether the notices were issued with the requisite prior approval as mandated by section 151 of the Act, particularly in light of the amendments and judicial interpretations following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal. The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee concerning the jurisdictional validity and the procedural compliance in issuing the notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837583 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: TVS Credit Services Ltd. v. DCIT, Core Logistic Company vs. ACIT, Jagathesh vs. ACIT, Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT, CIT vs. Indian Bank, ACIT v Surya Ferrous Alloys (P) Ltd., Keshri Rice Industries v DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE OBJECTION; GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: V. THARISH
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Reassessment proceedings; Depreciation; Application of stay
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘बी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛनई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी इंटूरȣ रामा राव, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2565/CHNY/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Aman Gupta, A-1, Vrindavan Enclave, 189, Lloyds Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai – 600 086. PAN: ADZPA 0417D Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, LTU, Chennai. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri V. Tharish, CA ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2016-17. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2565/Chny/2025 :- 2 -: 2. At the very outset, we find that the assessee has filed additional grounds and raised legal issues. The additional grounds 1 to 4 relates to the issue whether Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act instead of Faceless Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, the Ld.AR relied on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of TVS Credit Services Ltd. v. DCIT in W.P. No. 22402 of 2024 (judgment dated 24.06.2025). Ground Nos.5 to 7 of additional grounds relates to the issue of validity of notice u/s.148 of the Act. It is stated that since the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant year prior approval ought to have obtained from the CCIT, however in the instant case prior approval is obtained from the PCIT. In this context, the Ld.AR had placed on record the order passed u/s.148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022. Therefore, it is contented that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and consequent reassessment order is bad in law. In support of the contention the Ld.AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Core Logistic Company vs. ACIT reported in [2025] 175 taxmann.com 453 and the Co-ordinate Bench order of the Tribunal in the case of Jagathesh vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.1565 & 1566/CHNY/2025 (order dated 30.12.2025). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2565/Chny/2025 :- 3 -: 3. The Ld.DR has filed brief written submissions which reads as follows:- “These written submissions are confined to the legal/jurisdictional grounds raised by the assessee vide letter dated 02.02.2026 (additional grounds 1-9). The Revenue has already filed separate submissions on the merits of the additions under section 69A and related issues. The Revenue most respectfully submits that the additional grounds are inadmissible, belated. contrary to settled procedure, and wholly without merit. The reassessment proceedings initiated vide notice u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 are valid ab initio and were carried out in strict compliance with the binding directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC). The clarificatory insertion of section 147A by the Finance Bill, 2026 (deemed effective from 01.04.2021) further reinforces the jurisdictional validity of the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). I. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION INADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS (Grounds 4, 8, 9). 1. The additional grounds raising jurisdictional objections were never raised before the Assessing Officer during the entire reassessment proceedings or before the Id. CIT(A) during the first appellate stage, despite multiple opportunities (including detailed show-cause notices and personal hearings). 2. These grounds involve mixed questions of law and fact (mode of issuance, level of sanction, applicability of further proviso to s. 148, etc.) and require fresh examination of internal departmental records, which is impermissible at the Tribunal stage. 3. Admission at this belated stage would cause serious prejudice to the Revenue and unnecessarily prolong proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) and the Madras High Court in CITY. Indian Bank [2015] 230 Taxman 635 (Mad.) have permitted additional grounds only where they are pure questions of law and beneficial to the party raising them. The present grounds are tactical, dilatory, and not beneficial. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2565/Chny/2025 :- 4 -: 4. Prayer: The Hon'ble Tribunal is most respectfully prayed to reject the additional grounds as inadmissible. II, BELATED RAISING OF OBJECTIONS VIOLATES GKN DRIVESHAFTS PROCEDURE AND CAUSES LOSS TO THE GOVERNMENT EXCHEQUER 5. The assessee has raised jurisdictional objections for the first time before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 02.02.2026, after fully participating in the reassessment proceedings for over three years without raising any such grievance. 6. This is in direct contravention of the procedure mandatorily laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC), which clearly holds: \"When a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment... 7. The assessee never filed any such objections before the AO. He is therefore estopped from raising these objections at this stage and the conduct amounts to waiver of the right to object. 8. Belated raising of jurisdictional grounds at the final appellate stage causes avoidable multiplicity of proceedings, wastage of judicial time, and loss to the government exchequer due to delayed recovery of legitimate revenue. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed grave concern over such belated challenges and frivolous litigation that prejudice public revenue: i. Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India [1974] AIR 130 (SC) 1974 SCR (2) 178: The Court deprecated the absence of a proper litigation policy leading to unnecessary tax disputes and consequent loss to the exchequer. Wherein it is observed that the State, as the largest litigant, must act with Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2565/Chny/2025 :- 5 -: a finer sense of responsibility and not raise technical pleas that prolong litigation and burden public funds. \"......He took no steps whatever to carry out the amendment for several months after the order permitting the amendment, and thereafter, when the case was at the final stage, he suddenly woke up, as it were, from slumber, and sought to amend his application. In the circumstances, the Authority rightly refused to put a premium on this delay and laxity on the part of the appellant. 4. Recent observations (2021-2025): The Supreme Court has repeatedly criticized delays and frivolous appeals by both sides that result in loss to the government exchequer (Delay in Filing of Appeals: Judges as Citizens Concerned about Revenue Loss: SC observation, 2021; Supreme Court Raps Income Tax Department for Filing Appeal in Decided Matter, 2025). \"Once a Special Leave Petition has been dismissed by the Supreme Court based on an earlier judgement of the Supreme Court, there ought not to be any more petitions filed by the department. We say so for the reason that filing of such frivolous cases would only add to the pendency of this court and also lead to docket explosion and unnecessary wastage of judicial time,\" the bench said.\" ……………. \"The Supreme Court has said that judges as citizens have genuine concerns about the revenue loss and asked the Centre to expedite streamlining the appeal filing process related to direct and indirect taxation matters………... \"Look, we as citizens of this country have genuine concern about revenue losses to the government on account of delay in filing appeals. We see that appeals are being filed with 500-600 days delay and they are dismissed by the courts. 10. Allowing belated jurisdictional grounds at this stage would encourage similar tactics, leading to prolonged litigation and avoidable loss to the exchequer. Prayer: Reject the additional grounds as belated, waived, and prejudicial to public revenue. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2565/Chny/2025 :- 6 -: III. VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S 148-ISSUED BY JAO (Grounds 1-3) 11. The notice dated 30.07.2022 is valid and was issued in strict compliance with the binding directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC): i. Original notice u/s 148 dated 20.04.2021 issued under unamended regime (pre-Finance Act, 2021) during extended TOLA period. ii. Per para 6 of Ashish Agarwal, such notices were deemed show-cause notices u/s 148A(b). After opportunity (no response), order u/s 148A(d) passed and fresh notice u/s 148 issued as a procedural continuum and not a fresh initiation. iii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explicitly directed that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (who issued the original notice) shall continue the proceedings, pass the order u/s 148A(d), and issue the notice u/s 148. 12. Finance Bill, 2026: Insertion of Section 147A The Finance Bill, 2026 (Clause 8) inserts section 147A (deemed effective from 01.04.2021) which expressly clarifies: \"147A. Assessing Officer for purposes of sections 148 and 1484. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgement, order or decree of any court or in section 1514 or in any scheme framed thereunder, for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the Assessing Officer for the purposes of sections 148 and 148A shall mean and shall always be deemed to have meant to be an Assessing Officer other than the National Faceless Assessment Centre or any assessment unit referred to in sub-section (3) of section 1448\" This retrospective clarificatory provision directly overrides any contrary High Court judgments and settles the jurisdictional controversy in favour of JAO issuance in transitional cases. It removes all doubt and strengthens the Revenue's position that the notice dated 30.07.2022 issued by the JAO is valid ab initio. Prayer: Hold the notice valid; reject grounds 1-3. Alternatively, stay proceedings pending final disposal of pending SC SLPs, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2565/Chny/2025 :- 7 -: IV. VALIDITY OF APPROVAL/SANCTION U/S 151 (Grounds 5-6) 16. Approval was obtained from Pr.CIT-4 (DIN dated 30.07.2022) under the extended TOLA timeline (3-year limit extended to 30.06.2021 Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)). Attracts s. 151(1); s. 151 (ii) inapplicable. 17. Original sanction obtained under unamended provisions in ITBA during TOLA extension prior to original notice (20.04.2021) remains valid and available in the portal. 18. Ashish Agarwal treats proceedings as continuum; no fresh sanction required for procedural fresh notice. 19. HCs quashing on sanction under SC appeal and the matter is subjudice. (SLPs supra). 20. Finance Bill, 2026 clarifications reinforce continuity of jurisdiction. Prayer: Hold sanction valid; reject grounds 5-6. V. CONTINUITY OF ORIGINAL SANCTION POST-ASHISH AGARWAL 21. Original notice u/s 148 (20.04.2021) under unamended provisions; approval under then-s.151 obtained in ITBA prior to 31.03.2021/ during TOLA extension prior to 31.03.2021. 22. Ashish Agarwal creates procedural continuum; original sanction suffices. No fresh sanction mandated. Finance Bill, 2026 insertion of s.147A further validates JAO jurisdiction retrospectively from 01.04.2021. No fresh sanction is mandared for the \"fresh\" notice, as it is not a de novo initiation but a procedural step to comply with the SC directions. VI. CONCLUSION & CONSOLIDATED SUBMISSIONS ON LEGAL GROUNDS 23. The original notice under section 148 was issued on 20.04.2021 under the unamended regime (pre-Finance Act, 2021) and during the extended period under TOLA. Pursuant to the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2565/Chny/2025 :- 8 -: Supreme Court in Union of India v Ashish Agarwal (2022) 138 taxmann.com 64 [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC), this notice was deemed to be a show-cause notice under section 148A(b). After following the due procedure under section 148A (including issuance of show-cause notice and order under section 148A(d) dated 30.07.2022), the fresh notice under section 148 was issued on the same date (30.07.2022) by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. 24. These jurisdictional grounds are being raised for the first time at the final hearing stage before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 02.02.2026 after a lapse of more than three years from the issuance of the fresh notice and more than two-and-a-half years after completion of assessment on 23.05.2023. 25. The assessee fully participated throughout the reassessment proceedings right from the deemed show-cause notice under section 148A(b), the order under section 148A(d), the fresh notice under section 148 dated 30.07.2022, and the entire assessment proceedings culminating in the order dated 23.05.2023 without raising even a whisper about: i. the alleged mandatory requirement of issuance by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), or ii. the alleged invalidity of sanction under section 151(ii). 26. Even in the first appeal before the Id. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the reopening only on general grounds (Grounds 2-4 in Form 35) and furnished no specific submissions on jurisdiction. The present detailed jurisdictional objections were never raised at any stage prior to this Tribunal. 27. 27. The Il. CIT(A), after considering the material on record and the conduct of the assessee (închiding non-furnishing of vital documents such as sale deed, proof of cash component, confirmations, etc.), expressed concern over the unexplained cash deposits and credits, and accordingly confirmed the order of assessment and dismissed the appeal. 28. Further Proviso to Section 148-Waiver of Separate Approval The further proviso to section 148 (as it stood at the relevant time) clearly provides that no separate approval is required for issuing notice under Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2565/Chny/2025 :- 9 -: section 148 where the order under section 148A(d) has been passed with the prior approval of the specified authority. In the present case, the order under section 148A(d) itself was passed with the prior approval of the Pr. CIT (as evident from the DIN: ITBA/COM/F/17/2022- 23/1044343880(1) dated 30.07.2022 and records). Therefore, the requirement of separate approval for the fresh notice under section 148 stands completely waived. 29. The assessee's reliance on Core Logistic Company v. ACIT [2025] 175 taxmann.com 453 (Madras) is misplaced because in that case there was no prior approval for the order under section 148A(d) which could trigger the waiver under the further proviso. The facts here are clearly distinguishable. 30. Without prejudice, even otherwise, in Ashish Agarwal revival cases, approvals granted by the Pr. CIT have been consistently upheld by several Benches of the Tribunal on the ground that the proceedings are governed by the special procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC). This is a case squarely covered by the special modus operandi directed by the Apex Court. The assessee cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. Having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for over three years without demur, the assessee is estopped from challenging the same at this belated stage. 31. These grounds are not pure questions of law. Verification of the level of sanction, applicability of the further proviso to section 148, and the conduct of proceedings would require examination of internal departmental approvals and records, a factual inquiry that cannot be undertaken for the first time before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 32. Accordingly, the additional grounds deserve to be rejected as inadmissible, belated, and prejudicial to public revenue. VI. PRAYER In view of the foregoing submissions, the Revenue most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2565/Chny/2025 :- 10 -: a. Reject the additional grounds as inadmissible, belated, and prejudicial to public revenue b. In the alternative, dismiss the said grounds on merits for the reasons aforesaid C. Hold the reassessment proceedings and notice dated 30.07.2022 to be valid ab initio d. Uphold the additions confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) in toto e. Grant stay/adjournment pending final disposal of pending SC SLPs, if the Hon'ble Tribunal so deems fit.” 4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Ld.DR has filed written submissions strongly objecting to raising of additional grounds for the first time before the Tribunal. Ground Nos.1 to 4 raised in the additional grounds is with regard to the jurisdictional AO to issue notice u/s.148 of the Act subsequent to the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022. In this context, it is to be mentioned that Finance Bill, 2026 has inserted section 147A of the Act with retrospective effect. Hence, we do not propose to adjudicate the issue raised in Ground Nos.1 to 4 in the additional grounds. As regards ground Nos.5 to 7, is regarding the issue of approval obtained from PCIT instead of PCCIT. This issue that is raised is purely legal issue, which does not require examination of fresh facts since the notice issued u/s.148A(d) & 148 of the Act are already on record. Since it is a jurisdictional issue and being a pure legal issue, in view of Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) and the Hon’ble Jurisdicitonal High Court Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2565/Chny/2025 :- 11 -: in the case of CIT vs. Indian Bank, [2015] 230 Taxman 635, we deem it appropriate to admit the additional ground Nos.5 to 7 and adjudicate the same. 5. In the instant case, original notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 20.04.2021 under the old regime. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in 444 ITR 1 (SC), notice issued u/s.148 of the Act was treated as a notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act (under new regime) and called for assessee objection for reopening the assessment. Assessee did not respond nor sought time to file the objection to the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO passed an order u/s.148A(d) of the Act on 30.07.2022 and simultaneously issued notice u/s.148 of the Act. In the instant case, admittedly AO had passed order u/s.148A(d) and issued notice u/s.148 of the Act beyond the period of 3 years from end of the relevant assessment year and obtained prior approval from the PCIT who is not a specified authority u/s.151(ii) of the Act. The notice issued u/s.148 of the Act reads as follows:- “1 I have information in your case under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the Assessment Year 2016-17 which requires action in consequence of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal, Civil Appeal 3005/2022, dated 4th May, 2022 suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2565/Chny/2025 :- 12 -: 147 of the Act. Order under sub-section (d) of section 148A of the Act has been passed in such case vide DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022- 23/1044343880(1) dated 30/07/2022 and annexed herewith for reference. 2. 1, therefore, propose to assessee or reassess such income, or re- compute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and 1, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 3 This notice is being issued after obtaining the prior approval of the Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4, Chennai, accorded on date 30/07/2022 vide DIN No. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044329933(1)” 6. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Core Logistic Company (supra) had quashed the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and consequent reassessment completed. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court reads as follows:- “9. A perusal of Section 151(i) would show that, the specified authority for the purpose of issuing notice under Section 148 within a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year is, the Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director. Further, in terms of provision of Section 149, three year time period is fixed for issuance of 148 notice, in the event of the amount is below 50 lakhs. In the present case, the amount involved is Rs.3,65,09,748/~, which is more than 50 lakhs. 148 notice was issued on 25.07.2022, which is beyond the period of three years. So admittedly, the approval has to be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General as defined under Section 151(ii). But, in the present case, the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner in terms of Section 151(i) and no approval was obtained before issuance of 148 notice in terms of provision of Section 151(ii), which is mandatory. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was issued in the present case in violation of provision of Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. In view thereof, the initiation of proceedings itself is without any jurisdiction. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2565/Chny/2025 :- 13 -: 7. An identical issue was also considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jegathesh vs. ACIT, (supra). The relevant finding of the Co-ordinate Bench order of the Tribunal reads as follows:- 35. From the facts of the case it is noted that the AO in the instant case has issued a notice u/s.148 of the Act on 23.04.2021. Pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in UOI v Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC) the said notice issued u/s.148 on 23.04.2021 was treated as a show cause notice u/s.148A(b) and further an opportunity u/s.148A(b) of the Income Tax Act was given to the assessee. Thereafter since no response was received from the assessee in respect of the show cause notice issued u/s.148A(b), a notice u/s.148 was issued on 27.07.2022. From the notice issued u/s.148 it could be seen that the AO has obtained approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vide Ref No.: C No.882 / PCIT – 8 / 2002-23 dated 22.07.2022. 36. After a careful reading of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and in UOI v Rajeev Bansal [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC) we note that in the present case the 3 year time limit for A.Y.2017-18 ended on 31.03.2021 which falls during the time between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021 as contemplated by section 3(1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). Since the 3 year period lapsed only on 31.03.2021 for the A.Y. 2017-18 and since it fell during the TOLA period, the authorities empowered u/s.151(1) of the old regime i.e. the PCIT could have granted sanction to reopen the assessment till the extended period upto 30.06.2021. However in case where the sanction has to be given after 30.06.2021, then the provisions of section 151 of the new regime would apply and that the sanction ought to have been obtained from the authorities empowered u/s.151(ii) of the Act of the new regime i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner of Director General of Income Tax. 37. In the instant case, admittedly the AO for issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022, beyond the period of 3 years, has obtained approval from the PCIT who is not the specified authority u/s.151(ii) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2565/Chny/2025 :- 14 -: 38. Since the AO has not obtained sanction from the specified authority u/s.151(ii) of the Act for issuing the notice u/s.148 of the Act, we therefore are of the view that the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO to issue notice u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law. 39. This view has been upheld in the case of ACIT v Surya Ferrous Alloys (P) Ltd.[2024] 169 taxmann.com 736 (Mumbai - Trib) and Keshri Rice Industries v DCIT [2025] 170 taxmann.com 425 (Raipur - Trib)” 8. In the instant case, since notice u/s.148A(d) and 148 of the Act have been issued on 30.07.2022 (i.e., beyond three years from the end of relevant assessment year) and prior approval has not been obtained in terms of section 151(11) of the Act, we hold the said notices and reassessment order is invalid in light of the judicial pronouncement cited supra. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Since we have decided Ground Nos.5 to 7 in favour of assessee, other grounds are not adjudicated and are left open. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly-allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th February, 2026 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (इंटूरȣ रामा राव) (INTURI RAMA RAO) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 17th February, 2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2565/Chny/2025 :- 15 -: RSR आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "