Case Law Details
Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The Delhi Bench of the ITAT decided the appeal of the individual against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC. The Assessing Officer had reopened assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B and made the addition. The assessee challenged the reopening, arguing that no valid notice u/s 148A was issued and no proper sanction u/s 151 was obtained. On examining the approval u/s 151, the Tribunal found that it lacked signatures of the PCIT, and despite directions, the Revenue failed to produce a duly signed approval. Holding that the absence of valid sanction rendered the notice u/s 148 invalid, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment. The appeal was allowed, and the addition deleted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 19.09.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”) for A.Y. 2020-21. The assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer [for short, ‘AO’] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 13..01.2025.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal which are reproduced as below:
“i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the learned CIT (A), so far as confirming the addition, is arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law.
ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, no mandatory notice under section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer.
iii) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, there was no valid sanction obtained by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for re-opening the Assessment Proceedings.
iv) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, there was no escapement of Income which could be re-assessed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
v) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,91,772/- (Rupees Nine Lac Ninety One Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two Only) made by the Assessing Officer wrongly assuming the compensation amount as interest amount and wrongly deducting the TDS.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend or modify the above grounds of Appeal..”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return for A.Y. 2020-21 in which only Rs. 9,91,772/- out of total amount of Rs. 20,90,611/- received from M/s Proview Realtech Pvt. Ltd on account of delay in possession of property was shown. Based on this information which was received by the Ld. AO under E-verification Scheme 2021, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2024 as the assessee could not explain as to why only Rs. 9,91,772/- was declared in the ITR (instead of the whole amount of Rs. 20,90611/-) and why it has been claimed to be exempt. Thereafter, assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B at an income of Rs. 13,27,422/- after making addition of Rs. 9,91,772/- on account of interest income. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 19.09.2025, the appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
4. Before us, Ld. AR has first taken up the legal ground raised vide Ground No. (i) to (iii) whereby it is alleged that no valid sanction u/s 151 of the prescribed authority was obtained by the Ld. AO for reopening of the assessment proceedings. A copy of the approval u/s 151 has been filed before us wherein no digital/physical signatures of the Ld. PCIT are visible. Accordingly, Ld. DR was directed to produce a copy of the duly signed approval of the Ld. PCIT, in case available, before the Bench.
4.1 Since no valid approval u/s 151 has been submitted before us despite specific directions to the Ld. DR, we hereby, quash the notice u/s 148 being invalid and bad in law on this ground.
4.2 As the notice u/s 148 has been quashed, rest of the grounds have become academic in nature and hence, not being adjudicated upon.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18-03-2026.
Author Bio
