JAYANTIKA JATIA,KOLKATA V. DCIT, CIRCLE 29, KOLKATA

ITA 2250/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jayantika Jatia against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2016-17. The primary contention was the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment. The assessee argued that the approval for the notice was not in accordance with the law, specifically section 151, as it was not obtained from the appropriate authority after the stipulated time period. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, agreed with the assessee, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal vs. CIT, which emphasized the necessity of obtaining approval from the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in such cases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840937 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal, Rajeev Bansal vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDIP SARKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL SURANA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.2250/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jayantika Jatia Shree Gunjan, 7, Ronaldshay Road, Kolkata-700027, West Bengal Vs. DCIT, Circle 29, Aaykar Bhawan Dakshin,2, Gariahat Road(south), Kolkata- 700031, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AKWPM8544K Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, AR Revenue by : Shri Sandip Sarkar, DR Date of hearing: 27.01.2026 Date of pronouncement: 26.02.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 28.08.2025 for the AY 2016-17. 2. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed ground no.4, which is extracted below:- “4. For that the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action u/s 148 when the reopening was bad in law since the approval obtained for issuing the original notice u/s 148 dated 29.05.2021, was not in accordance with law and therefore all subsequent proceedings are bad in law.” 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 05.08.2016, declaring total income at ₹64,65,160/-. Later on, the Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 2250/KOL/2025 Jayantika Jatia; A.Y. 2016-17 case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29.06.2021, after recording the reasons and after obtaining the administrative approvals. The said notice was treated as show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act as per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)/[2022] 286 Taxman 183 (SC)/[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC)[04-05-2022]. The ld. AO supplied the information relied upon by the ld. AO while issuing notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act on 27.05.2022 and the assessee was required to furnish the reply within 14 days which was filed by the assessee on 09.06.2022. Thereafter, the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act was passed on 28.07.2022 and the notice was issued on the same date. The ld. AO completed the assessment vide order dated 25.05.2023, passed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act, wherein the addition of ₹4,68,69,912/-, was made. 4. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued by the ld. AO without obtaining a valid approval as contemplated u/s 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 . The ld. AR submitted that the Finance Act, 2023, has provided that with effect from 01.04.2023, the specified authority for the purpose of section 148 and 148A of the Act shall be Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, if more than three years have lapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.In the present case, the ld. AR submitted that the year involved is A.Y. 2017-18 and 148 was issued in the year 2022, therefore, more than three years have elapsed since the expiry of therelevant assessment year and approval has to be granted in terms of Section 151(ii) of the Act . Therefore, the ld. AR submitted that the approval u/s 151 of the Act was invalidly Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 2250/KOL/2025 Jayantika Jatia; A.Y. 2016-17 granted by ld. PCIT-9, Kolkata for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.07.2022. The ld. AR therefore prayed that the order passed may kindly be quashed as invalid and nullity as the reopening was made on the basis of invalid approval granted u/s 151 of the Act. 5. The ld. DR on the other had relied on the order of lower authorities. 6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the reopening of assessment has been made after a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year as the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.01.2022. We have perused the provisions of Section 151 of the Act and find that the competent authority to sanction the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act is the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, if more than three years have elapsed after the end of the relevant assessment year. In the present case, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was dated 28.07.2022, copy of which is available at page no.14 and 15 of the Paper Book which was issued after obtaining prior approval of ld. PCIT-9, Kolkata, instead of Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata. Therefore, the said approval is invalid and reopening based on the said approval is also invalid. Consequently, the order passed also invalid and nullity in the eyes of law. The3 case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal reported 469 ITR 46(SC) wherein in para 114(d) , it has been held that where the notice is issued beyond three years from the end of relevant years the sanction u/s 151 is required to be obtained form PR CCIT whereas in the instant case the approval was granted by Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefore, we quash the approval Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 2250/KOL/2025 Jayantika Jatia; A.Y. 2016-17 granted u/s 151 of the Act as well as the assessment framed u/s 147/ 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 26.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 26.02.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "