SRI PRATAP CHANDRA TRIPATHY,GANJAM V. ITO, WARD-1, GANJAM

ITA 731/CTK/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sri Pratap Chandra Tripathy against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which pertained to the assessment year 2016-2017. The core issue was the validity of a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The notice was challenged on the grounds that it was issued without the necessary approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), as mandated by Section 151 of the Act. The tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including decisions from the Bombay High Court, which supported the assessee's position that the notice and subsequent assessment were invalid due to improper authorization.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837559 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Agnello Oswin Dias Vs. ACIT, Vodafone Idea Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Haresh Kumar Dungarmal Jain Vs. DCIT, Davos International Fund Vs. DCIT, Alag Property Construction Private Limited Vs ACIT, Ramesh Bachulal Mehta Vs Income Tax Officer, ACIT, International Taxation Vs. LinkedIn Singapore Pte. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S.K.SARANGI
• Keywords: Set aside; Invalid notice; Reassessment proceedings; Competent authority
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कटक Ûयायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.731/CTK/2025 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Years : 2016-2017) Sri Pratap Chandra Tripathy, Braja Nagar, 1st Lane, Lochapada Road, Berhampur, Ganjam-760001 Vs ITO, Ward-1, Berhampmur, Ganjam PAN No. :ACFPT 5072 J (अपीलाथȸ /Appellant) .. (Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S.K.Sarangi, AR राजèव कȧ ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 17/02/2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 17/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 07.10.2025 for the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the impugned assessment year is 2016-17. It was submission that notice u/s.148 of the Act came to be issued on 25/08/2022. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the copy of the notice issued which reads as follows:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.731/CTK/2025 2 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.731/CTK/2025 3 3. It was submission that the notice has been issued beyond 03 years. It was submission that the approval for the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act beyond 3 years and the amount is above 50,00,000/- which should be granted by PCCIT. It was submission that approval has been obtained from the PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar. It was submission that the approval is wrong and consequently, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law. 4. In reply, Ld.Sr. DR submitted that the principle of TOLA would apply in the present case. He vehemently supported the orders of the AO and CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the assessment was reopened after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year as the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.08.2022, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.731/CTK/2025 4 whereas the assessment year involved is 2016-2017 and thus is beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, in term of section 151 of the Act, the approval was required to be taken from the ld. PCCIT, whereas the assessee has taken an approval from ld. PCIT- 1, Bhubaneswar. Accordingly, in our opinion, the approval has not been granted by the competent authority as prescribed under the Act under section 151(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act with consequent assessment are nullity and bad in law. The issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.3249 of 2022 in case of Agnello Oswin Dias Vs. ACIT dated 22.02.2024, wherein it has held as under:- “4. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 22 April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai-5. The matter pertains to Assessment Year (\"AY\") 2018-2019 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 22 April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 of the Act has been inserted only with effect from 1\" April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand. 5. In the circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 22nd April 2022 under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside.” 6. Similarly, decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Vodafone Idea Ltd. Vs. DCIT vide WP No. 2768 of 2022 dated 06.02.2024, wherein it has followed the decision of Agnello Oswin Dias (supra), as under:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.731/CTK/2025 5 “1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 19 March 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\"), the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice both dated 7th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. One of the grounds raised is that the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is invalid inasmuch as the sanction has been admittedly issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (\"PCIT\") and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT\"). 2. Petitioner's request for a copy of the sanction has also been denied. Even in the affidavit in reply, the Department is refusing to give the sanction which makes us wonder what is the national secret involved in that, that Assessee is being refused what he is rightfully entitled to receive from the Department. In the affidavit in reply, the stand taken by the Revenue is it will be made available during the re-assessment proceeding. 3. The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai 5. The matter pertains to Assessment Year (\"AY\") 2018-19 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 7th April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The provisio to Section 151 has been inserted only with effect from 1 April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand. 4. In these circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the sanction is invalid and consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice both dated 7th April 2022 under section 148A(d) and 148 of the Act are hereby quashed and set aside. 5. Petition disposed. No order as to costs. All rights and contentions are kept open. 6. For completion of record, Respondents are directed to make available to Petitioner copy of the approval form as well as the approval accorded for issuance of order under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Act within one week from this order being uploaded.” 7. Similarly, in the case of Haresh Kumar Dungarmal Jain Vs. DCIT vide ITA No. 1933/PUNE/2024 vide order dated 24.02.2025 & Davos International Fund Vide ITA No.1190/MUM/2024, dated 13.01.2025 the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.731/CTK/2025 6 issue is decided on the same lines. Similar ratio has been laid down in the cases as decided by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court Alag Property Construction Private Limited Vs ACIT Writ Petition No. 3938 of 2022 order dated 8.9.2025 and in Ramesh Bachulal Mehta Vs Income Tax Officer (2025) 177 taxmann.com 606 (Bom). 8. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT, International Taxation Vs. LinkedIn Singapore Pte. Ltd., reported in [2025] 180 taxmann.com 158 (SC) has dismissed the SLP filed by the revenue and upheld the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court wherein it was held that where approval for initiation of reassessment proceedings was granted by Commissioner after expiry of 3 years from end of relevant assessment year, said approval should have been granted by Principal Chief Commissioner, thus, impugned order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act and impugned notice issued under section 148 of the Act were to be quashed. 9. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the law as on the date for issuance of notice has been repeatedly held by various Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Apex Court. The notice u/s.148 of the Act has also been issued on 25.08.2022 as a consequence of an order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act dated 30/07/2022. The notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued beyond the period of 3 years from the end of the impugned assessment year. As it is noticed that the approval is to be granted in such cases by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax but the approval has been granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, therefore, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.731/CTK/2025 7 respectfully following the above judicial pronouncements, the approval granted in the case of the assessee for the year under consideration is held to be invalid and accordingly the notice u/s.148 of the Act stands quashed. Consequently, the assessment order passed as consequence of the invalid notice issued 148 of the Act also stands quashed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 17/02/2026. Sd/- (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सदèय/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ÛयाǓयक सदèय / JUDICIAL MEMBER Ǒदनांक Dated 17/02/2026 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant - 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुÈत / CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. स×याͪपत ĤǓत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "