Sandeep Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
A notice under the old Section 148 was issued on 24.06.2021. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashish Agarwal, AO issued 148A(b) on 24.05.2022, passed an order u/s 148A(d) on 29.07.2022 & then issued a fresh notice u/s 148 on 30.07.2022—with approval from the PCIT.
Assessee argued that as per Union of India vs Rajeev Bansal (SC), once the new reassessment regime (post–1.4.2021) applies, the notice u/s 148 must have approval of the “specified authority” under Section 151(ii)—i.e., PCCIT/PDGIT/CCIT, not PCIT. Tribunal accepted this, holding that the AO violated Section 151(ii).
Following Ramesh Bachulal Mehta (Bom HC) & other rulings, ITAT held that a notice issued without approval of the correct authority is illegal, & therefore the reassessment must be quashed.
Held: Notice u/s 148 dated 30.07.2022 is invalid for want of approval from the specified authority; consequential reassessment also quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 12.07.2024 for A.Y 2017-18.
2. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the issue raised in this appeal is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 167 com70.
