ASHISH JAIN,DELHI V. ITO WARD-67(1), DELHI

ITA 4644/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ashish Jain, the appellant, who contested the reassessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The primary legal contention was regarding the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was claimed to be issued without the requisite approval from the competent authority as per the amended provisions of section 151. The tribunal examined the procedural compliance in issuing the notice and found that it was not in accordance with the law, leading to the quashing of the notice and allowing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838183 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Communist Party of India (Marxist) vs. CIT Exmpt.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKUL GUPTA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4644/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17) Ashish Jian, 79, Basement Bhera Enclave, Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi-110085, PAN-AFIPJ3833M Vs. ITO, Ward-67(1), Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. and Shri Sandeep Goel, Adv. Department by Ms. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short], in Appeal No. NFAC/2015-16/10296691 dated 24.06.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’ for short) for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. This appeal was filed delayed by 332 by the assessee for which an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit of the assessee reaffirming the facts stated in the application are filed. It is stated that the order of Learned CIT(A) was served on e-filing portal and the counsel who pursued the appeal has not informed Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.4644/Del/2025 Ashish Jain vs. ITO about the passing of order of ld. CIT(A). when the assessee got the notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the fact that appellate order has already come to the knowledge of the assessee It is further stated that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but purely due to the above unavoidable circumstances. It is thus requested that delay being bonafide, deserves to be condoned and appeal be admitted for adjudication. 3. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation of delay. 4. After considering the arguments of both the parties, we find that there is reasonable and sufficient cause with the assessee in filing the appeal delayed by 332 days. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapses of the litigant concerned, that alone is not enough to turn down the plea of assessee and to shut the doors against it. When the explanation does not smack of mala fide or it is not put forth as a part of dilatory strategy, the Courts must give utmost consideration to such litigant and its right of hearing of the appeal on merit ought not to be shut. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, delay in filling the appeal is condoned and appeal of the assessee is taken for adjudication on merits. 5. In grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 3, assessee has challenged the reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act by alleging that the notice is issued u/s148 after obtaining approval from the authority which was not competent to grant approval u/s 151 of the Act. 6. Heard both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. Form the perusal of the fresh notice issued u/s 148 of the Act after passing the order u/s 148A(d) on 30.06.2022, it is observed that the same were issued after obtaining the approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-15, Delhi on 30.06.2022. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.4644/Del/2025 Ashish Jain vs. ITO 7. Section 148 of the Act was substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act under the old provisions of section 148 of the Act applicable till 31.03.2021 could be issued only upto 31.03.2021. This issue stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in 444 ITR 1 (SC). Under the amended provisions for reopening the assessment, the AO has issued notice u/s 148A(b) on 17.05.2022 and on 30.06.2022 order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed followed by the notice u/s 148 of the Act on the same date, i.e. on 30.06.2022. This notice dated 30.06.2022 u/s 148 of the Act, was issued after obtaining approval of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-15, Delhi which is contrary to the provisions of section 151 of the Act as amended/substituted by the Finance Act, 2021. As per amended section 151 of the Act, if more than three years have lapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General is required to be obtained before the issue of notice us 148 of the Act. In the present case since the notices u/s 148 was issued on 30.06.2022 i.e., after expiry of three years from the end of relevant assessment year, therefore, sanction/approval of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General was necessary. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). Further the hon’ble jurisdictional high court in the case of Communist Party of India (Marxist) vs. CIT Exmpt. (supra) has dealt this issue and observed as under: “10. The impugned notice is also liable to be set aside on the ground that it was issued without the approval of the authority specified under Section 151 of the Act. Since the impugned notice was issued beyond the period of three years from Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.4644/Del/2025 Ashish Jain vs. ITO the end of the relevant assessment year, thus, in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Act, the same was required to be approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no such authority, by Chief Commissioner or Director General. The determination of the specified authority for grant of approval under Section 151 of the Act depends on whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year or within the said period.\" 8. As observed above, notices u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2023 after obtaining the approval of Pr.CIT-15, Delhi thus such notice is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. Accordingly, grounds of appeal No. 1 to 3 of the assessee are allowed. 9. Since we have allowed the legal grounds of the assessee, the other grounds of appeal are not adjudicated. 10. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the Open Court 18. 02. 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SUDHIR KUMAR) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:18.02.2026 *PK, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELH Printed from counselvise.com "