Reshma Harbakhsh Singh Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
The Delhi Bench of the ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2018-19 and quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148, holding that the mandatory sanction u/s 151 was obtained from an incompetent authority. After 01.04.2021, where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant AY, the statute requires prior approval of the PCCIT/CCIT under section 151(ii). In the present case, the notice dated 04.04.2022 was issued on the basis of approval granted by the PCIT, which was contrary to the express mandate of law.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling in UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC), the Tribunal reiterated that sanction by the specified authority is a jurisdictional precondition, not a procedural formality, and non-compliance vitiates the AO’s jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148. Since the foundational requirement failed, the reassessment was held invalid and void ab initio. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings and additions were rendered non-est, and the remaining grounds were treated as infructuous.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi [for short, Ld. CIT (A)/NFAC], u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (for short, the “Act”), order dated 31.08.2025 in the Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10373834.
