Case Law Details
Great Getsby Club of India Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Reopening Without Reasons Is Void: Delhi ITAT Quashes 148 Notice Issued Before Recording Satisfaction
Reasons First, Notice Later—ITAT Pulls Plug on Illegal Reopening- 148 Issued Before Satisfaction? Reassessment Non Est
Delhi ITAT ‘SMC’ Bench in The Great Getsby Club of India Vs. ITO [ITA No. 7144/Del/2025, AY 2014-15, order dated 16.12.2025] allowed Assessee’s appeal and quashed reassessment proceedings where notice u/s 148 was issued prior to recording reasons and obtaining statutory approval. Tribunal noted that notice u/s 148 was issued on 19.01.2016, whereas reasons were recorded and approval of JCIT was obtained only on 17.03.2016. CIT(A) sought remand report but failed to adjudicate this jurisdictional defect. Tribunal held that on the date of issuance of notice, AO lacked subjective satisfaction, rendering the reopening without jurisdiction. Relying on PCIT Vs. Tata Sons Ltd. (SC), Tribunal reiterated that reasons must precede issuance of notice and reopening cannot be done in a casual or routine manner. Consequently, notice u/s 148 and all subsequent proceedings were held vitiated and quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 16.10.2025, for the Assessment Year 2014-15.
2. The assessee in appeal has assailed validity of the notice issued u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the ground that the reasons recorded for issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and approval from the Competent Authority is after issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. The ld. Counsel pointed that notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 19.01.2016 whereas, the reasons were recorded on 17.03.2016 and the approval of same was received from the JCIT on same date i.e. 17.03.2016.
3. Submissions made by rival sides heard. A perusal of impugned order reveals that the assessee had raised this issue before the First Appellate Authority. The CIT(A) sought remand report from the AO but no finding was given by the CIT(A) on the issue. The fact that the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 19.01.2016 was issued prior to seeking approval from the Competent Authority and recording of reasons is unrebutted. Thus, it is evident that on the date of issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act, the AO had no subjective satisfaction or reasons to reopen assessment. The assessment cannot be reopened without there being any reasons or material satisfaction of the AO to invoke the provisions of section 148/147 of the Act. It is a well settled legal principle that reopening of assessment cannot be done in a causal routine manner. The AO has to record satisfaction/reasons before initiating reopening of assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of PCIT vs. Tata Sons Ltd. 449 ITR 166, upholding the view of High Court where reasons to reopen the assessment were recorded after issuance of the reassessment notice held that, when the notice for reassessment was issued, there was no subjective satisfaction, hence, unsustainable.
4. Thus, in light of the facts of the case and the settled legal principle, I hold the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 19.01.2016 without jurisdiction. Consequently, the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are vitiated and are quashed.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 16th day of December, 2025.
Author Bio
