Tarun Kumar Sahu Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
Section 151: CCIT Approval Invalid When Jurisdictional PCCIT Exists, Rules Raipur ITAT
Summary: The Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated with approval from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) when the jurisdictional Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) was available.
In Tarun Kumar Sahu v. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur, ITA No. 788/RPR/2026, decided on 4 November 2026, the Tribunal held that the approval violated Section 151(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as applicable to the proceedings.
The decision concerned Assessment Year 2016-17 and a notice under Section 148 issued on 21 March 2023, beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
Background: Assessee Challenged Reopening Approval
The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 23 July 2026.
Before the Tribunal, his principal legal objection concerned the authority that had approved the reopening.
The assessee submitted that, because more than three years had elapsed from the end of AY 2016-17, approval had to satisfy the requirements of Section 151(ii).
However, the Assessing Officer obtained approval from the CCIT, Raipur, rather than the PCCIT having jurisdiction over the assessee’s region.
According to the assessee, this defect went to the validity of the reopening notice and consequently invalidated the reassessment.
Tribunal Condoned 22-Day Delay
The appeal was filed with a delay of 22 days.
The assessee submitted a condonation application and an affidavit dated 22 October 2026, explaining the delay.
The Tribunal found no material from the Revenue suggesting that the delay resulted from mala fide or deliberate conduct. It also found nothing in the application or affidavit indicating intentional delay.
Referring to judicial authorities, including Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, the Tribunal condoned the delay and proceeded to examine the legal challenge.
Approval Form Identified Different Authorities
The assessee drew attention to the approval document itself.
Column 21 identified the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as the specified authority. However, Column 22 showed that approval had actually been granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur.
This discrepancy supported the assessee’s contention that the authority identified under the applicable statutory provision had not granted the approval.
The Departmental Representative supported the Assessing Officer’s findings but acknowledged the position reflected in the two columns and the resulting violation concerning the approval.
The dispute therefore concerned more than a general allegation of defective sanction; the document disclosed the precise authority mismatch.
CCIT’s Role Depended on Absence of PCCIT
The Tribunal explained that, under Section 151(ii) applicable to the case, the CCIT’s authority to grant approval was contingent upon the absence of the PCCIT.
It found that a PCCIT for Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh was duly available, with the office situated in Bhopal.
The Tribunal also referred to CBDT Notification No. 56/2014 dated 3 November 2014, concerning the hierarchy of income-tax authorities.
Since the PCCIT was the superior jurisdictional authority and existed for the region, the condition permitting the CCIT to act was not satisfied.
The approval could not therefore be sustained merely because it came from another senior income-tax authority.
Office Location Did Not Limit Territorial Jurisdiction
An important aspect of the reasoning concerned the location of the PCCIT’s office.
The Tribunal followed its decision in Leela Devi Jain v. ITO, Ward-1, Bhilai, ITA No. 641/RPR/2025, dated 15 June 2026.
That decision explained that the PCCIT’s office being located in Madhya Pradesh did not mean that no PCCIT existed for Chhattisgarh.
The notified jurisdiction extended over both States. Consequently, the physical location of the office did not authorise substitution of the CCIT for the PCCIT.
The relevant consideration was the existence of the jurisdictional office, rather than whether it was situated within Chhattisgarh itself.
Earlier Raipur Decision Reinforced Statutory Compliance
The Tribunal also referred to DCIT v. Avani Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 88 to 91/RPR/2025, decided on 6 August 2026.
That decision concerned approval obtained from the PCIT instead of the specified higher authority for reopening beyond three years.
Although the authority involved differed, the Tribunal applied the same underlying principle: approval must come from the authority designated by the applicable statute.
The precedents supported the assessee’s challenge to reopening founded on approval from an authority lacking the required statutory competence.
Reassessment Quashed as Void Ab Initio
The Tribunal held that approval granted by the CCIT violated the statutory requirement.
It consequently declared the reassessment proceedings bad in law and void ab initio, and quashed them.
The remaining grounds became academic, and the assessee’s appeal was allowed.
The ruling highlights that identifying the correct sanctioning authority is a substantive requirement for valid reassessment. Its conclusion rests on the statutory provision applicable to the notice and the established existence of the jurisdictional PCCIT.
Cases Discussed
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs Mst. Katiji & Others (Supreme Court); Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1987; 19/02/1987; 167 ITR 471 (SC). Relied upon for adopting a justice-oriented approach in condoning the 22-day delay.
- Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (Supreme Court); SLP (Civil) Nos. 26310–26311/2024; 31/01/2025. Cited concerning condonation of delay and the absence of deliberate conduct.
- Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (Chhattisgarh High Court); Tax Case No. 17/2025; 24/02/2025. Cited as supporting authority for condonation of the delayed appeal.
- Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Supreme Court); SLP (Civil) No. 6145/2024; 21/03/2025. Cited on the approach to condonation of non-deliberate delay.
- Leela Devi Jain Vs ITO, Ward-1, Bhilai (ITAT Raipur); ITA No. 641/RPR/2025; 15/06/2026; AY 2015-16. Directly followed: the PCCIT headquartered in Bhopal had jurisdiction over Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, rendering CCIT approval contrary to Section 151(ii).
- DCIT-1(1), Raipur Vs Avani Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Raipur); ITA Nos. 88 to 91/RPR/2025; 06/08/2026; AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19. Followed on the requirement to obtain reassessment approval from the statutorily specified authority.
- Union of India Vs Ashish Agarwal (Supreme Court); 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543; 04/05/2022. Referred to in the reproduced passage from the Avani Ferro Alloys appellate order concerning transitional reassessment proceedings and statutory approval.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ITAT RAIPUR
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 23.07.2026 for the assessment year 2016-17 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 22 days. Explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation, the assessee had filed an “affidavit”, dated 22.10.2026 as well as condonation application.
3. I have carefully considered the contents of the condonation application a/w. affidavit and it is observed that there is no material/evidence on record filed by the Revenue to suggest malafide or deliberate conduct of the assessee for causing such delay. Further, contents of the condonation application and affidavit also do not spell out any deliberate conduct of the assessee for causing the said delay. Respectfully considering the various judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the delay of 22 days involved in the appeal is condoned.
4. The contention in law as assailed by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), A.Y.2016-17 is dated 21.03.2023 which, therefore, was issued beyond the period of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year and as per the dictate of law enshrined in Section 151(ii) of the Act, the competent authority for granting approval is Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. But in the present case of the assessee, approval has been obtained from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur. In fact, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee demonstrated through notice as well as copy of the approval wherein, at Column 21, Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is referred to as the specified authority, whereas, as evident from Column 22 of the approval, approving authority is the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur.
5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that it has been held in various decisions that the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to grant approval u/s.151 of the Act is expressly contingent upon the absence of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. But in the present case, there is Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, hence, approval by the Chief Commissioner is in violation of Section 151(ii) of the Act since notice u/s. 148 of the Act issued beyond three years and therefore, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act is invalid, void ab initio which therefore cannot give rise to a valid reassessment which is liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR supported the findings of the A.O. He conceded to the fact as enshrined in the approval at Column 21 wherein specified authority is mentioned as the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax whereas the approval has been given by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur as per Column No.22 of the approval, hence, there is violation of Section 151(ii) of the Act since notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued beyond the period of 3 years from end of the relevant assessment year.
7. Having heard the submissions of the parties herein, admittedly, there is Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Madhya Pradesh & Chhattisgarh, having seat of office at Bhopal. That as per the CBDT Notification No.S.O.2813(E)[No.56/2014], dated 03.11.2014, the hierarchy of the Income Tax Authorities is explained where the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is the superior authority than the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. That as per Section 151(ii) of the Act, approval has to be given by the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and if he is not there, then only the role of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax comes into play where notice u/s.148 is issued beyond period of 3 years from end of the relevant assessment year. In this regard, it is relevant to extract notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 21.03.2023 which reads as follows:
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX
OFFICER
WARD 1(1), RAIPUR
To,
TARUN KUMAR SAHU
H NO 156 VILLAGE DUMARTARAI,
DHAMTARI ROAD MANA
RAIPUR 492001, Chhattisgarh
India
| PAN: CPMPS0874R | A.Y: 2016-17 | Dated: 21/03/2023 | DIN & Notice No: ITBA/AST/F/148/1/2022-23/1051081538(1) |
Notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
Sir/Madam/M/s.
1. I have the following information in your case or in the case of the person in respect of which you are assessable under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here in after referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2016-17.
- Information in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated in this regard suggesting that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. Order under sub-section (d) of section 148A of the Act has been passed in such case vide DIN ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1051079556(1) dated 21/03/2023 and annexed herewith for reference.
2. I, therefore, propose to assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and I, hereby, require you to furnish, within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
MANOJ KUMAR PANDEY
WARD 1(1), RAIPUR
(In case the document is digitally signed please
refer Digital Signature at the bottom of the page)
That such notice has been issued beyond the period of 3 years.
8. That since the office of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is present in the state of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and since notice u/s. 148 of the Act had been issued beyond the period of 3 years as per Section 151(ii) of the Act, the specified authority is the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for granting approval. I find that this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the ITAT, Raipur, SMC Bench in the case of Leela Devi Jain Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Bhilai (C.G.) ITA No.641/RPR/2025, dated 15.06.2026, A.Y.2015-16 observing as follows:
“4. As per Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), the approval has to be given by the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and if he is not there, then only the role of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax comes into play. However, the fact of the matter is herein that the office of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is present in the State of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. This is the exact jurisdiction as enshrined by the Board for the purpose of Income Tax Act, and therefore, one cannot say there is no Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for Chhattisgarh since though seat of office of Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is in Madhya Pradesh, however, his jurisdiction extends also to the State of Chhattisgarh. The Ld. Sr. DR could not refute these facts. She only banked upon the clarification in the memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2026. However, these clarifications cannot supersede the dictate, the authority of the statute i.e. Section 151(ii) of the Act, hence, submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR are sans any merit.
5. The jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to grant approval u/s. 151 of the Act is expressly contingent upon the absence of the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. In this case, the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax having jurisdiction over Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh is duly constituted and notified within the meaning of Section 2(34A) read with section 117 of the Act. Therefore there exist no condition precedent in the present case for the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to exercise jurisdiction as per Section 151(ii) of the Act since the Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is already present for the State of Chhattisgarh. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the approval granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is in clear violation of the statutory mandate. Therefore, reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of such invalid approval becomes bad in law, void ab initio, hence, quashed.
6. Rest all other grounds stands academic only.
7. That as per above terms, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
9. Further, I find that similar issue has been dealt with by this Bench in the cases of DCIT-1(1), Raipur Vs. Avani Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos.88 to 91/RPR/2025, A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2018-19, dated 06.08.2026 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue observing as follows:
“50. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the only issue to be decided in the appeal as per grounds raised in the application under Rule 27 is that the approval has been obtained from the PCIT instead of the specified authority i.e. the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General which is in violation of clause (ii) of section 151. We find the assessment year involved is assessment year 2017-18 and the Assessing Officer in the instant case has issued the notice u/s 148 on 15.07.2022 by obtaining approval from the PCIT-1, Raipur. We find when the assessee challenged the approval obtained from the PCIT instead of the specified authority i.e. the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee by observing s under:
“7.6 Ground No.7: the appellant sought to introduce a new ground of appeal regarding the “Specified Authority” in this case. It is relevant to state that in the case of Union of India and Ors vs Ashish Agrawal & Ors, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in light of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment) Act (TOLA), regularised these proceedings, ruling that the reopening of cases under the old regime in compliance with the time limits set forth in Section 149 of the Income Tax Act (prior to the amendment), was valid. It also confirmed that the approval under Section 151, as per the old regime, remained applicable. Therefore, based on this understanding, the approval granted by the Hon’ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur, is valid and cannot be challenged. This ground of appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed.”
51. Identical issue has already been decided by us in the preceding assessment year holding that obtaining approval from the specified authority for issue of notice u/s 148 vitiates the re-assessment proceedings. Since in the instant case also more than 3 years elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority is the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General. Since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has obtained approval from the PCIT who is not the specified authority, therefore, the reopening of the assessment by issue of notice u/s 148 by obtaining approval from the PCIT vitiates the entire re-assessment proceedings. Accordingly, we quash the re-assessment proceedings and the grounds raised by the assessee in the application under Rule 27 is allowed. Since the re-assessment proceedings have been quashed, the appeal filed by the Revenue becomes infructuous and accordingly the same is dismissed.
52. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.”
10. That upon examination of facts and circumstances in this case and as per the aforesaid judicial precedents, on the same parity of reasoning, it is held that the approval granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is in clear violation of the statutory provisions. Therefore, reassessment proceedings initiated on the basis of such invalid approval is bad in law, void ab initio, hence, quashed.
11. Rest all other grounds stand academic only.
12. That as per above terms, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 4th day of November, 2026.
