Ontivillu Gopidoss Jothilakshmi Vs ITO (Madras High Court)
The petitioner challenged the order dated 27.03.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The impugned order concluded that income of ₹1,30,36,000 had escaped assessment, held that the requirements of Section 149(1) were satisfied, and approved issuance of notice under Section 148 with the prior approval of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai under Section 151(ii).
The record showed that during Financial Year 2016-17, the petitioner had cash transactions and had sold immovable property but had failed to file the return of income. A notice under Section 148A(b) dated 30.01.2024 was issued, to which the petitioner submitted replies dated 11.03.2024 and 12.03.2024, culminating in the impugned order dated 27.03.2024.
The petitioner contended that the proceedings were contrary to Section 151A and Notification No.18/2022 dated 29.03.2022, arguing that only a Faceless Assessing Officer could issue a notice under Section 148A(b). It was further submitted that the mandatory sanction under Section 151 had not been produced, as the impugned order merely recorded that prior approval of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had been obtained. The petitioner also relied upon decisions of the Delhi, Telangana, Bombay and Gauhati High Courts and contended that reopening was barred by limitation under Section 149.
