Nirmalkunj Sales Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
ITAT Kolkata Quashes Reopening – Notice u/s 148 Void Without Proper Sanction from Pr.CCIT
Assessee challenged reassessment order passed pursuant to notice u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022. The notice mentioned prior approval of Pr.CIT-2, Kolkata obtained on 28.07.2022. Based on reassessment, AO made addition of ₹79,00,000 treating cash consideration received from sale of shares as unexplained cash credit. CIT(A) upheld reassessment & addition.
Before Tribunal, Assessee argued that reopening was after three years from end of AY 2016-17, hence mandatory sanction of Pr.CCIT was required u/s 151, not Pr.CIT. Since approval was granted by Pr.CIT, the sanction was invalid rendering notice u/s 148 void ab initio.
Tribunal agreed, relying on Supreme Court decision in Rajeev Bansal v. Union of India [469 ITR 46 (SC)] wherein it was held that for reopening beyond three years, sanction must be from Pr.CCIT. This principle had been consistently followed in subsequent ITAT & High Court rulings, including Devang Ajit Jhaveri (ITAT Mumbai, 29.01.2025), Sakshi Ratneshchand Jain (ITAT Mumbai, 10.02.2025), Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC, 05.03.2025)& Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi (ITAT Pune, 07.05.2025). Accordingly, Tribunal quashed notice u/s 148 & entire reassessment proceedings as invalid.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
