Damanjeet Singh Oberoi Vs DCIT (ITAT Raipur)
The ITAT Raipur disposed of cross-appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue for AY 2016-17 arising from an assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 26.05.2023. The assessee challenged the reassessment on limitation and jurisdictional grounds and also contested an addition of ₹3.80 crore under Section 69A and the application of Section 115BBE. The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)’s treatment of the ₹3.80 crore amount as capital gain instead of unexplained money under Section 69A.
The assessee specifically contended that approval for the order under Section 148A(d) dated 15.07.2022 and notice under Section 148 dated 18.07.2022 was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur. According to the assessee, since more than three years had elapsed from the end of AY 2016-17, Section 151(ii) required approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The assessee therefore argued that the notice under Section 148 and consequential reassessment were invalid.
The Tribunal examined the Section 148A(d) order and Section 148 notice and found that both had been approved by the PCIT-1, Raipur. It referred to decisions of the Bombay High Court in Ramesh Bachulal Mehta vs ITO, the Madras High Court in Core Logistic Co vs ACIT, the Bombay High Court in Alag Property Construction Pvt Ltd, the Telangana High Court in Deloittee Consulting India (P.) Ltd. vs NFAC, and ITAT Mumbai in Arvind bhai Khatri Sons Designs (P.) Ltd vs ACIT. These decisions addressed the requirement of approval by the authority specified under Section 151(ii) where more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.
