Mangla Gupta Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
The writ petitions before the Delhi High Court concerned Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17 and 2017-18. The central issue was whether reassessment notices and orders issued under Sections 148A(d) and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were legally sustainable in the absence of approval from the “specified authority” as mandated under the amended provisions of the Act.
Read SC Judgment in this case: SC Dismisses SLP as Reassessment Lacked Approval from Correct Specified Authority
The Court noted that in one representative matter, the petitioner had filed a return of income for AY 2017-18, which was processed under Section 143(1). Subsequently, following the decision in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, the revenue issued a notice dated 26.05.2022 under Section 148A(b). After considering the petitioner’s reply, the revenue passed an order dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148A(d) holding that income of Rs. 4,37,56,000/- had escaped assessment, and issued a consequential notice under Section 148. The order and notice were issued after obtaining approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Delhi.
The petitioners challenged the reassessment proceedings, contending that although more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment years, approval had not been obtained from the correct “specified authority” under Section 151(ii) of the Act. Instead, approval was taken from authorities falling under Section 151(i).
