JAG PREET SINGH NARANG,KAUSHAMBHI V. THE ITO, WARD 58(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 6910/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jag Preet Singh Narang, the appellant, contesting the validity of a notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The notice was issued to reopen the assessee's case beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, which required approval from a higher authority due to the elapsed time. However, the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, who was not the competent authority for this action, leading to the notice's invalidity. The Income Tax Department, represented by the Senior Departmental Representative, supported the lower authorities' decisions, but the tribunal's focus was on the procedural legality of the notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790821 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Manish Gyanchand Mehta Versus DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRENDER KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ARUN KUMAR JAIN
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 148; 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC”, NEW DEALHI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6910/DEL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical hearing) Jag Preet Singh Narang, B-49, Radhy Krishna Lane, Kaushambhi Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201010 Vs The ITO, Ward-58(1), New Delhi-110002 Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Arun Kumar Jain, CA Revenue by Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing 01.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 01.12.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 21.08.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2017-18. 2. Though, the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, however in my considered view the only substantial grounds of appeal relates to validity of notice under section 148 that sanction/approval is not from competent authority and the addition of Rs.8.00 lakhs under section 68 of the Act, which is on merit. 3. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the case of the assessee for AY 2017-18 was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act dated 22.07.2022. The case of assessee was reopened Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 6910/Mum/2025 Jag Preet Singh Narang 2 beyond three years from end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain the sanction/approval from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have passed from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has obtained sanction/approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT)as recorded in para 3 of notice under section 148 itself. As approval is not by the competent authority, therefore, notice u/s 148 is invalid and subsequent action initiated thereon is Void-ab-initio. To support such contention, the ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Manish Gyanchand Mehta Versus DCIT reported in 173 taxmann.com 953(Delhi). 4. On the other hand, the ld. Senior Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I have also perused the notice under section 148, copy of which is placed on record. Admittedly, the case of the assessee was reopened for AY 2017-18 by issuing notice dated 22.07.2022. Para 3 of the notice u/s 148 contained the reference ”the notice is being issued after obtaining the prior approval of PCIT dated 21.07.2022 vide reference number 1158.” Considering the fact that during the relevant period sanction was required from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, in case more than three years have passed from the end of the relevant Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 6910/Mum/2025 Jag Preet Singh Narang 3 assessment year. However, the assessing officer obtained sanction from PCIT who was not competent to approve such sanction, therefore, notice under section 148 is invalid and subsequent action initiated thereon is void-ab-initio. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Manish Gyanchand Mehta versus DCIT (supra). Thus, I accept the preliminary submissions of ld AR of the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue. Considering the fact that assessee succeeded on legal issue, hence, discussion of merit has become academic. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 01st December, 2025. Sd/- PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi, Dated: 01.12.2025 f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, New Delhi; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "