Jagadhaeswaran Vivekanandhan Vs Assessing Officer (ITAT Chennai)
After Three Years, PCIT’s Signature Is Not Enough -Notice u/s 148 Requires PCCIT-Level Sanction u/s 151(ii): Chennai ITAT
The Chennai ITAT has held that where a notice u/s 148 is issued after expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, prior approval must be obtained from the higher authority specified u/s 151(ii), namely the PCCIT, Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General.
Approval granted merely by the PCIT for such a notice is without jurisdiction. Since the notice for AY 2017-18 was issued on 26.07.2022—well beyond three years—with the sanction of the PCIT instead of the PCCIT-level authority, the Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings.
Facts of the Case
The assessee was an individual who had not originally filed his return of income for AY 2017-18.
The AO received information that the assessee had sold immovable property during the relevant year. Since no return had been filed, the AO issued a notice u/s 148 on 21.04.2021 under the erstwhile reassessment regime.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, the old notice was treated as a show-cause notice u/s 148A(b) under the substituted reassessment provisions.
