Anil Kumar Aggarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
PCIT SIGNED WHERE PCCIT HAD TO- WRONG APPROVING AUTHORITY u/s 151 SINKS ENTIRE REASSESSMENT
The Delhi ITAT has held that where notice u/s 148 is issued more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year, approval must be obtained from the authority specifically prescribed u/s 151(ii). Approval granted by the PCIT instead of the PCCIT could not confer jurisdiction upon the AO. Following the Delhi High Court’s decision in Kids Dream International Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, the entire reassessment was quashed.
Additional jurisdictional grounds
The assessee, Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal, challenged the reassessment proceedings relating to AY 2016-17.
Before the ITAT, he raised additional legal grounds questioning the validity of the approval granted u/s 151 & the authority of the jurisdictional AO to initiate and complete the reassessment instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer.
The assessee contended that the approval had been granted by the wrong authority, mechanically & without proper application of mind. Consequently, the statutory preconditions for issuing notice u/s 148 had not been fulfilled.
Since these grounds were purely legal, arose from the material already available on record & went to the root of jurisdiction, the Tribunal admitted them following NTPC Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC).
