Dhwaja Commodity Services Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Wrong Section 151 Approval Renders Reassessment Void: Mumbai ITAT Quashes ₹25.02 Lakh Section 69C Addition
The assessee’s appeal was filed with a delay of 33 days because the accountant responsible for tax matters had travelled to Rajasthan due to his mother’s medical emergency. Accepting the explanation and supporting affidavit as constituting sufficient cause, the Mumbai ITAT condoned the delay.
For AY 2018-19, the reassessment notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. However, approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.
The Tribunal held that under Section 151(ii), reopening beyond three years requires approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General. Approval by the PCIT, an authority contemplated under Section 151(i), was jurisdictionally invalid.
Relying on the Bombay High Court ruling in Alag Property Construction (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and dismissal of the Revenue’s SLP in ITO v. Mangla Gupta, the Tribunal held that sanction from the correct specified authority is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
Consequently, the reassessment framed under Sections 147 read with 144B was quashed as void ab initio. Therefore, the merits of the ₹25.02 lakh addition under Section 69C, including the alleged double addition in the computation, did not require adjudication.
List of Cases Discussed / Relied Upon
- Dhwaja Commodity Services Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
- Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC)
- N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnan, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123
- Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Electricity Mazdoor Sabha & Anr., reported in 30 GLR 833 (Guj.)
- Smt. Pari Bai and Ors. Vs. Bhagat Ram and Ors., reported in AIR 1977 All 549
- Alag Property Construction (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT, reported in (2025) 179 taxmann.com 578 (Bom.)
- Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), [2024] 301 Taxman 238 (SC), [2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC)
- Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC), [2022] 286 Taxman 183 (SC), [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC), (2023) 1 SCC 617
- ITO vs. Mangla Gupta, (2026) 183 taxmann.com 121
- Twylight Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, (2024) 463 ITR 702 (Delhi)
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, [“Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 22.12.2025, for the assessment year 2018-19.
19. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1
1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order u/s. 250 of the Act dated 22.12.2025 confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 18.03.2024 which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act and passing the reassessment order u/s 147 of the Act is invalid and bad in the eyes of law.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the order passed is in violation of principles of natural justice.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs. 25,02,158/- u/s 69C of the Act, which is bad and invalid in the eyes of law.
5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that while computing total income in the computation sheet supplied with the assessment order, the Ld. AO has made double addition of Rs. 25,02,158/- resulting in determining total income at Rs. 12,38,20,250/- instead of Rs. 12,13,18,088/-.
6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act which is invalid and bad in the eyes of law.
7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act which is invalid and bad in the eyes of law.”
3. This appeal is filed with delay of 33 days for which a petition for condonation of delay is filed by the assessee are as under:
“2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was uploaded on the Income Tax Portal on 22.12.2025. Accordingly, the time limit for filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal expired on 28.02.2026. The present appeal came to be filed on 02.04.2026, resulting in a delay of 33 days (1 month and 2 days).
3. The appellant submits that the delay in filing appeal was due to genuine reasons beyond the control of the appellant as explained hereinunder:
4. It is submitted that the responsibility of handling and monitoring the income- tax related affairs of the appellant, including regularly checking the income-tax portal for communications/notices and coordinating with the appellant’s tax consultants for the purpose of filing appeals, representations, and other necessary compliances was entrusted with the accountant of the appellant namely, Mr. Subhash Agrawal.
5. The appellant submits that the appellate order dated 22.12.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19, passed against the reassessment order, was received on the appellant’s registered email, along with two other orders concerning with same A.Y. 2018-19 relating to the regular assessment and penalty proceedings. The last date for filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal was 28.02.2026. The appellant was under a bonafide belief that Mr. Subhash Agrawal was taking necessary steps to file an appeal against the said order.
6. However, in the interregnum, on account of a medical emergency concerning the accountant’s mother, he was compelled to travel to his native place at Navalgarh, Rajasthan on 10.02.2026, to look after his aged and ailing mother. He resumed office on 29.03.2026 upon his mother’s health showing improvement. Consequently, the accountant remained at his native place during the period from 10.02.2026 to 29.03.2026. It is pertinent to mention, that his mother’s health deteriorated once again, necessitating his return to the village on 04.04.2026, from where he returned again on 25.04.2026.
7. It is submitted that on account of the aforesaid medical exigency, the act of filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal remained to be carried out by the accountant. The directors were under a bonafide belief that necessary compliance would have been made by him.
8. Upon resuming work on 30.03.2026, the accountant realized that appeal against the aforementioned appellate order had not been filed before the Hon’ble Tribunal and promptly arranged for the appeal to be filed on02.04.2026 resulting in a delay of 33 days in filing the said appeal. These facts are confirmed by the Mr. Subhash Agrawal on duly notarized affidavit as enclosed herewith.
9. The appellant respectfully submits that the delay in filing appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional, but has occurred due to bona fide circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. It is pertinent to highlight that the appellant has always been vigilant about it’s matters which can be seen from the fact that there was due compliance made before of diligence on the part of the appellant. The delay is attributable solely due to a genuine oversight.
10. It is further submitted that the appellant has a strong case on merits, supported by substantial documentary evidence, and has raised valid and arguable grounds challenging the jurisdiction of the assessing officer as well as on merits of the case. If the delay is not condoned, the appellant would suffer irreparable loss and prejudice, despite having a meritorious case.
11. In the interest of substantial justice, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 33 days in filing the present appeal and grant the appellant an opportunity to be heard on merits.”
4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC), and N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnan, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Electricity Mazdoor Sabha & Anr., reported in 30 GLR 833 (Guj.), and the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Pari Bai and Ors. Vs. Bhagat Ram and Ors., reported in AIR 1977 All 549
5. Heard rival contentions, we noticed that the assessee in the affidavit deposed as under:-
“1. I say that I am employed as an Accountant with M/s. Dhwaja Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”), bearing PAN: AACCD4884G, having its registered office at 603, Sanjar Enclaves, S.V. and records of the case, I am competent and duly authorized to affirm this affidavit on behalf of the Company.
2. I say that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an order u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2018-19 on 22.12.2025, arising out of the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 18.03.2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Company had preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal on 02.04.2026.
3. I say that there is a delay of 33 days in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. The said delay was neither deliberate, intentional nor attributable to any negligence or lack of diligence on the part of the company, but occurred solely due to exceptional and unavoidable circumstances beyond its control.
4. I say that I was entrusted with the responsibility of handling and monitoring the income-tax related affairs of the Company, including regularly checking the income-tax portal for communications/notices and liaising with the company’s tax consultants for the purpose of filing appeals, representations, and other necessary compliances.
5. I say that the appellate order dated 22.12.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2018- 19, passed against the reassessment proceedings, was received on the Company’s registered email, along with two other orders concerning with same A.Y. 2018-19 relating to the regular assessment and penalty proceedings. The last date for filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal was 28.02.2026.
6. I say that in the interregnum, on account of a medical emergency concerning my mother, I was compelled to travel to my native place at Navalgarh, Rajasthan on 10.02.2026, to look after my aged and ailing mother. I resumed office on 29.03.2026 upon my mother’s health showing improvement. I say and affirm that I remained at my native place during the period from 10.02.2026 to 29.03.2026. I further say that on 04.04.2026, my mother’s health deteriorated once again, necessitating my return to my village, from where I returned again on 25.04.2026.
7. I say that on account of the aforesaid medical exigency, the act of filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal remained to be carried out on my part.
8. I say that upon resuming work on 30.03.2026, I discovered that the appeal against the aforementioned appellate order had not been filed before the on 02.04.2026 before the Hon’ble Tribunal, resulting in a delay of 33 days in filing the said appeal.
9. I say and confirm that no malafide intention was involved in filing the present appeal belatedly. The delay in the present case was solely unintentional and due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. The said delay should be termed as technical and not real and hence, the delay of 33 days deserves to be condoned.”
6. On going through the reasons explained in petition for condonation of delay and the contents of the affidavit and the reasons explained therein, we find that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the time stipulated. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
7. Coming to the merits of the case, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal was disposed of by the learned CIT(A) ex-parte for non-prosecution. Learned Counsel further submitted that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is also u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act and is a best judgment assessment as the assessee could not submit replies before the Assessing Officer.
8. Referring to Ground No. 2, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment framed by the assessing officer is of the Act was without the prior approval of the “specified authority” as provided in section 151(ii) of the Act.
9. Learned counsel for the assessee, referring to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 08.04.2023 submitted that the notice was issued for reopening the assessment for assessment year 2018-19 beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, as per the provisions of section 151(ii), the Assessing Officer should have obtained permission from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, who is the “specified authority” under the said provision. However, the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, and therefore, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law and consequently, the reassessment framed u/s 144B r.w. section 147 of the Act on the basis of the invalid approval and notice under section 148 is also bad in law.
10. Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Undisputedly, the assessment for A.Y. 2018- 19 was reopened beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year by issue of notice u/s 148 of the that the approval was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai, for reopening the assessment.
11. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Alag Property Construction (P.) Ltd. vs ACIT, reported in (2025) 179 taxmann.com 578 (Bom.), held as under:
“6. In this factual backdrop, the Petitioner has contended that in the present case, the order passed under section 148A(d) dated 18.08.2022, was passed beyond three years from the end of the relevant A. Y. 2017- 18, and consequently, according to the provisions of section 151(ii) ([i.e. when more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year), the specified authority for obtaining the approval was either the Principal Chief Commissioner(PCCIT), or Principal Director General (PDGIT), or where there is no PCCIT or PDGIT, the Chief Commissioner(CCIT), or Director General (DGIT). However, in paragraph 7 of the order dated 15.07.2022 passed under section 148A(d), and also in paragraph 3 of the notice dated 23.08.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act, Respondent No.1 has stated that prior approval of Respondent No.2 i.e. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai was obtained and the said order was passed and the said notice was issued only thereafter. This aspect remains uncontroverted by the Respondents.
7. In these facts, the limited point to be examined is whether the order dated 18/08/2022 passed under section 148A(d) and the notice dated 23.08.2022 issued under section 148 of the Act for A.Y. 2017-18, after obtaining approval of Respondent No.2 [i.e. the PCIT-6, Mumbai], was in accordance with the provisions of section 151. In this regard, the Petitioner has drawn our attention to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)[2024] 301 Taxman 238 (SC)[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of approval of the specified authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act, made the following observations:
73. Section 151 imposes a check upon the power of the Revenue to reopen assessments. The provision imposes a responsibility on the Revenue to ensure that it obtains the sanction of the specified authority before issuing a notice under section 148. The purpose behind this procedural check is to save the assessees from harassment resulting from the mechanical reopening of 9 SCC 534.]), A table representing the prescription under the old and new regime is set out below:
| Regime Time limits | Specified authority |
|---|---|
| Section 151(2) of Before expiry of four years the old regime from the end of the relevant assessment year | Joint Commissioner |
| Section 151(1) of After expiry of four years the old regime from the end of the relevant assessment year | Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner |
| Section 151(i) of Three years or less than three years from the new regime the end of the relevant assessment year | Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director |
| Section 151(ii) of More than three years have the new regime elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year | Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General |
74. The above table indicates that the specified authority is directly co- related to the time when the notice is issued. This plays out as follows under the old regime:
(i) If income escaping assessment was less than rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued under section 148 within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and
(ii) If income escaping was more than rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.
75. After April 1, 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities the assessee because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [[2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)[2022] 286 Taxman 183 (SC)/[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) 1 SCC 617], after April 1, 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under section 151 of the new regime. The effect of section 151 of the new regime is
(i) If income escaping assessment is less than rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of three years; and
(ii) If income escaping was more than rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director; and (b) after three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General.
76. Grant of sanction by the appropriate authority is a precondition for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice. Section 151 of the new regime does not prescribe a time limit within which a specified authority has to grant sanction. Rather, it links up the time limits with the jurisdiction of the authority to grant sanction. Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes a higher level of authority if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, non-compliance by the Assessing Officer with the strict time limits prescribed under section 151 affects their jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 148.
77. Parliament enacted Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 to ensure that the interests of the Revenue are not defeated because the Assessing Officer could not comply with the preconditions due to the difficulties that arose during the covid-19 pandemic. Section883(1) of the Taxation and other ne (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 relaxes the time limit for compliance with actions that fall for completion from March 20, 2020 to March 31, 2021. The Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 will accordingly extend the time limit for the grant of sanction by the authority specified under section 151. The test to determine whether Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment is this: if the time limit of three years from the end of an assessment year falls between March 20, 2020 and March 31, 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(i) has an extended time till June 30, 2021 to grant approval. In the case of section 151 of the old regime, the test is: if the time limit of four years from the end of an assessment year falls between March 20, 2020 and March 31, 2021, then the specified authority under section 151(2) has time till March 31, 2021 to grant approval. The time limit for section 151 of the old regime expires on March 31, 2021 because the new regime comes into effect on April 1, 2021.
78. For example, the three-year time limit for the assessment year 2017- 2018 falls for completion on March 31, 2021. It falls during the time period of March 20, 2020 and March 31, 2021, contemplated under section 3(1) of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Resultantly, the authority specified under section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till June 30, 2021.
79. Under the Finance Act, 2021 ((2021) 432 ITR (Stat) 52), the Assessing Officer was required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the specified authorities at four stages:
(a) Section 148A(a) – to conduct any enquiry, if required, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment;
(b) Section 148A(b) – to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving upon them a show-cause notice as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued based on the information that suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It must be noted that this requirement has been deleted by the Finance Act, 2022 ([2022] 442 ITR (Stat) 91) [Section 45, Finance Act, 2022.];
(c) Section 148A(d) – to pass an order deciding whether or not it is a fit case for issuing a notice under section 148; and
(d) Section 148 – to issue a reassessment notice.
80. In Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [[2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)[2022] 286 Taxman 183 (SC)/[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) 1 SCC 617.], this court directed that section 148 notices which were challenged before various High Courts “shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the Income-tax Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021(2021) 432 ITR (Stat) 52) and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of section 148A(b)”.
Further, this court dispensed with the requirement of conducting any enquiry with the prior approval of the specified authority under section 148A(a). Under section 148A(b), an Assessing Officer was required to obtain prior approval from the specified authority before issuing a show- cause notice. When this court deemed the section 148 notices under the old regime as section 148A(b) notices under the new regime, it impliedly waived the requirement of obtaining prior approval from the specified authorities under section 151 for section 148A(b) notices. It is well established that this court while exercising its jurisdiction under article 142, is not bound by the procedural requirements of law. (High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2024) 6 SC 267.J)
81. This court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal [[2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)(2022) 286 Taxman 183 (SC)[2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC); (2023) 1 SCC 617] directed the Assessing Officers to “pass orders in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each of the assessees concerned”. Further, it directed the Assessing Officers to issue a notice under section 148 of the new regime after following the procedure as required under section 148A”. Although this court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under section 148A(a) and section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for section 148A (d) and section 148. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following thetime limits specified under section 151 of the new regime read with the Taxation and other 189 (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, where applicable.
(emphasis supplied)
8. On bare reading of the above extract of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had clarified as under:
(a) Under the substituted provisions of re-assessment as introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, the Assessing Officer is required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the ‘specified authority at four stages – at the first stage under Section 148A(a), at the second stage under Section 148A(b), at the third stage under Section 148A(d), and at the fourth stage under Section 148. In the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under section 148A(a) and Section 148A(b) of the Act only. Therefore, the authority’ according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under Section 148A(d) or for issuing a notice under Section 148.
(b) Under the new regime, if income escaping assessment is more than Rupees 50 lakhs, a reassessment notice could be issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant previous year only after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General or the Chief Commissioner or the Director General.
(C) Section 151(ii) of the new regime prescribes an approval of a higher authority, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Thus, non-compliance by the assessing officer with the strict time limits prescribed under section 151 vitiates their jurisdiction to issue a notice under section 148.
(d) Grant of sanction by the specified authority is a precondition for the assessing officer to assume jurisdiction under section 148 to issue a reassessment notice.
9. In the present case, the period of three years from the end of the A.Y. 2017- 18 fell for completion on 31″ March 2021. As the expiry date fell during the time period of 20th March 2020 and 31st March 2021, under Section 3(1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (for short “TOLA”), the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime could have granted sanction only till 30th June 2021.
10. On perusal of the order dated 18.08.2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act we find that the aforesaid order was passed after taking approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No.2). Since the aforesaid order was passed, as well as the notice under section 148 was issued, after the expiry of three years from the end of A.Y. 2017-18, as per the substituted provisions of re-assessment, the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the Act (i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner) was required to grant approval. Accordingly, we conclude that in the present case, approval has been obtained from the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime instead of the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the new regime.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case has drawn an illustration in para 78 of its order in the context of A.Y. 2017-18 (which is also the relevant Assessment year in the present Writ Petition) wherein it is categorically held that the authority specified under section 151(l) can clear that when the period of three years from end of relevant Assessment Year expired between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021, the extension by virtue of TOLA was upto 30.06.2021 and not beyond. Thus, it can be said that the period of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year (in the present case A.Y. 2017-18) expired on 30.06.2021, whereas Respondent No.1, despite passing order under section 148A(d) on 18.08.2022, and issuing notice under section 148 on 23.08.2022 [in respect of Assessment Year 2017-18], has obtained approval of Respondent No.2 who is not the authority as prescribed under section
12. Non-compliance by Respondent No.1 with the provisions contained in Section 148A(d) read with Section 151(ii) vitiates the jurisdiction of Respondent No.1 to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act.
13. We are clearly of the view that the present matter stands covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) and we are bound by it. Accordingly, we hold that the order dated 8.8.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice issued under section 148 dated and 23.08.2022 are bad in law, and hence, are required to be quashed and set aside
14. We accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 18.08.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequential notice issued under section 148 dated 23.08.2022, and all other proceedings/orders emanating therefrom.”
12. We further observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Mangla Gupta, (2026) 183 taxmann.com 121 dismissed SLP filed by the Revenue affirming the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Twylight Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, (2024) 463 ITR 702 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that where the Revenue issued a notice u/s 148/148A(d) to the assessee after the lapse of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year after obtaining prior “specified authority” in clause (i) of section 151, as against clause (ii) of section 151, the notice and order were to be quashed on the ground that there was no approval of the “specified authority” as indicated in section 151(ii) of the Act.
13. The above decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court squarely applies to the assessee’s case. Following the said decision, we hold that, since the approval for reopening of the assessment had been granted beyond a period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as mandated under the provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act, such notice u/s 148 is bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment framed is void ab initio. Accordingly, the reassessment framed for A.Y. 2018-19 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is quashed.
14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21/08/2026
