Praveen Kumar Diddige Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Reassessment Quashed: ITAT Hyderabad Holds Sec.148 Notice Invalid for Want of Proper Sec.151 Sanction Beyond 3 Years
In this appeal, Praveen Kumar Diddige challenged the validity of the reassessment initiated by the AO for AY 2017-18 through a notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.06.2022. Assessee contended that the said notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, thereby attracting the amended provision of sec.151(ii), which mandates that the Competent Authority to grant approval must be the Principal Chief Commissioner & not the Pr. CIT. The notice on record clearly demonstrated that approval was taken from Pr. CIT-2, Hyderabad instead of the CCIT, rendering the sanction void & the entire reopening process invalid. Assessee relied upon the binding decision of Tribunal in the case of Iqbal Ali Jaweed, Hyderabad Vs ITO wherein Tribunal quashed an identical reassessment for want of valid sanction when reopening was beyond three years.
Tribunal examined the notice u/s 148 reproduced in the order & noted that the reopening was undisputedly beyond the three-year window. Tribunal reiterated that after 01.04.2021, the amended sec.151(ii) mandates that in cases where reopening is beyond three years, sanction must be accorded by the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General. Approval from the Pr. CIT is insufficient in law. Tribunal relied on its own coordinate Bench decisions in Iqbal Ali Jaweed & Raziulla Syed, as well as the binding judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT, which held that the amended sanction structure must be followed & that TOLA does not override the requirement of proper authority approval.
