Sonu Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings on the technical ground that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid because it lacked proper sanction from the competent authority under Section 151 of the amended regime. Although this ground had been raised before the CIT(A), no finding was recorded. The Tribunal therefore examined the issue.
The assessee argued that both the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 were issued without approval from the authority mandated under Section 151 of the new regime. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Rajeev Bansal (469 ITR 46), wherein it was held that although the Court had waived the requirement of prior approval at the preliminary stages under Sections 148A(a) and 148A(b) in Ashish Agarwal, it had not waived approval requirements for Section 148A(d) or Section 148. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority as per Section 151 before issuing a notice under Section 148 in the new regime.
Section 151 of the new regime prescribes the competent authority based on whether the notice is issued within three years or after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Where more than three years have elapsed, sanction must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General.
