ACIT Vs Pradeep Patil (ITAT Delhi)
These consolidated appeals involved Revenue’s challenges against CIT(A)/NFAC orders for AYs 2017-18 & 2018-19, along with Assessee’s Cross-Objection challenging the very validity of reassessment proceedings. Assessee argued that the 148A(d) orders & subsequent 148 notices were void because the Assessing Officer wrongly obtained approval from the PCIT instead of the statutorily mandated Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner/Principal DG/DG, as required u/s 151(ii) in cases where more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.
During hearing, Revenue could not rebut that AO had indeed taken approval from an incorrect authority. ITAT noted that the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Income Tax Department (2025) had already held that reassessment notices issued with approval from an authority lower than the “specified authority” prescribed u/s 151(ii) are invalid & void ab initio. Tribunal reproduced extensively the Delhi High Court’s reasoning, which clarified that TOLA extensions do not alter the statutory hierarchy of approvals under the amended Section 151, & that approval must strictly conform to clause (ii) where reopening is beyond three years.
Since in the present case the AO had wrongly taken sanction from the PCIT instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner/Principal DG/DG, the foundational 148A(d) orders, 148 notices & consequential reassessments were all held to be illegal.
ITAT therefore allowed Assessee’s Cross-Objection, quashed the reopening proceedings entirely for both years & dismissed Revenue’s appeals. All other issues on merits were rendered academic.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
