ITO Vs LNG Agricom Private Limited (ITAT Delhi)
Delhi ITAT examined jurisdictional defects in reassessment proceedings for AYs 2015-16 & 2016-17. In CO No.219 (AY 2015-16), Assessee argued that notice u/s 148 dated 30.06.2021 was barred by limitation u/s 149, relying on Supreme Court ruling in UOI Vs Rajeev Bansal, which held that reassessment notices must fall within surviving six-year period even after exclusion under Ashish Agarwal mechanism. Tribunal held that notice dated 30.06.2021 for AY 2015-16 exceeded permissible six-year window & was therefore time-barred; consequent reassessment order & CIT(A)’s appellate order were quashed. Revenue’s appeal became infructuous.
In CO No.220 (AY 2016-17), Assessee challenged validity of notice u/s 148 dated 29.06.2022 on ground that sanction was obtained from PCIT, whereas more than three years had elapsed from end of AY 2016-17 & sanction under s.151 was mandatorily required from PCCIT. Tribunal noted that DR could not dispute this legal position. Since approval was taken from an incompetent authority, notice u/s 148 & all subsequent proceedings were held invalid & quashed. Consequently, Revenue’s appeal was rendered academic. Both cross objections allowed; both Revenue appeals dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
These appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross Objections by the Assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for the assessment years 2015-16 & 2016-17. Since these appeals and Cross Objections are inter-connected, hence, the same were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
