DCIT Vs Govinda Rajulu Srinivasan (ITAT Chennai)
Notice u/s 148 After 3 Years Needs Pr.CCIT Approval – ITAT Says Sanction by Pr.CIT Invalid, Reopening Quashed
Assessee ‘s case was reopened u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 26.07.2022, resulting in addition of Rs.7 Crores u/s 68. Before CIT(A), Assessee challenged the validity of the notice itself, arguing that more than 3 years had elapsed from the end of AY 2017-18 & therefore approval of the higher authority i.e. Principal Chief Commissioner (Pr.CCIT) was mandatory u/s 151(ii). However, the notice was approved only by the Principal Commissioner (Pr.CIT).
CIT(A), after examining the law & relying on Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal, held that in the post-2021 regime, time elapsed determines the level of authority. Since the notice was issued beyond 3 years, approval had to be from Pr.CCIT / Principal DG / Chief Commissioner / DG only, not Pr.CIT. As such approval was not taken, the notice was jurisdictionally defective & entire reassessment was quashed.
Revenue appealed, arguing that the 2022 notice was merely an extension of the earlier 148 notice dated 29.06.2021 (old regime) & approval by Pr.CIT was enough. Tribunal rejected this contention relying on consistent judicial authority.
