Case Law Details
Rajesh Bansal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
The appeals arose from orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 26/08/2025 and 29/08/2025 relating to Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessees challenged the partial relief granted by the CIT(A), while the Revenue also appealed against the order relating to one of the assessees. As identical questions were involved, the Tribunal heard the appeals together.
A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act was conducted on 03/08/2022. Thereafter, assessment orders dated 31/03/2024 were passed under Section 143(3), making certain additions. The assessees appealed before the CIT(A), who partly allowed their appeals, leading to the present appeals before the Tribunal.
The assessees contended that the assessments framed under Section 143(3) were invalid as the Assessing Officer had neither complied with Sections 148 and 148B nor obtained the mandatory approval under Section 148B. They relied on judicial precedents and sought allowance of their appeals and dismissal of the Revenue’s appeal. The Departmental Representative argued that the assessments had been framed in accordance with law and that the additions were justified on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the search under Section 132 was conducted during Financial Year 2022-23, relevant to Assessment Year 2023-24, making Assessment Year 2022-23 the immediately preceding assessment year. It observed that although notice under Section 143(2) had been issued and assessment completed under Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer had not complied with Sections 148 or 148B. Referring to Explanation 2 to Section 148 and Section 148B, as well as the Finance Bill, 2022 memorandum, the Tribunal held that for Assessment Year 2022-23 the Assessing Officer was mandatorily required to initiate proceedings under Section 148 and obtain prior approval under Section 148B before passing the assessment order. Since neither requirement had been fulfilled, the assessment proceedings and the assessment order were held to be bad in law and without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal relied upon its earlier decision in Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT/ACIT, where it had been held that once a search under Section 132 is conducted, the only permissible statutory course is to issue notice under Section 148 and obtain prior approval under Section 148B before completing the assessment. That decision held that after a search, assessments could not validly continue under Section 143(3) without following the statutory procedure under Section 148. It also observed that Section 148 constitutes the special mechanism applicable where search information suggests escapement of income, and that Section 143(3) could not be used in such circumstances.
The Tribunal also referred to the Chandigarh Bench decision in M/s Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT and connected matters, which held that the assessment ought to have been framed under Section 148, that approval under Section 148B was required, and that the approval obtained for an order under Section 143(3) was bad in law. Since the assessment was quashed on legal grounds, the Tribunal in that case observed that examination of the merits became academic.
Further reliance was placed on the Delhi Tribunal’s decision in Deepak Agarwal v. DCIT, where it was held that, following the post-2021 statutory scheme, search cases falling between 01.04.2021 and 01.09.2024 were required to proceed under Section 148 read with Explanation 2, and that resort to Sections 143(2) and 143(3) was invalid in such circumstances. The Tribunal also referred to the principle that statutory powers must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law and that special provisions govern over general provisions. It noted that various coordinate benches had decided the issue in favour of assessees.
Applying the ratio of the earlier Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal held that for Assessment Year 2022-23 the Assessing Officer had failed to obtain approval from the specified authority under Section 148B and had also failed to comply with Sections 148 and 148B. Accordingly, the assessment orders passed against the assessees were set aside, and the assessees’ appeals were allowed. Since one assessment order had been set aside, the Revenue’s appeal became infructuous and was dismissed. The order was pronounced on 21 May 2026.
Cases Discussed:
- M/s Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Central Circle-2 Ludhiana and (Vice-Versa) And M/s Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Central Circle-2 Ludhiana and (Vice-Versa), 2026 (1) TMI 983 ITAT Chandigarh.
- Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-II, Noida, ITA No. 5458/Del/2025 & 5906/Del/2025, order dated 29/12/2025.
- Deepak Agarwal, C/o- Kapil Goel, Adv, Vs DCIT, CC-25, New Delhi, 2025 (10) TMI 1101.
- Homelife Buildcon (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2025) 176 taxmann.com 614 (Chandigarh -Trib.).
- Jamna Das Nikkamal Jain Saraf Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT, ITA No. 403/Chd./2025, decided on 04.11.2025.
- UOI vs Rajeev Bansal, 469 ITR 46.
- Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Marayadit vs Zila Sahakarikendriya Bank Maryadit, (2020) 6 SCC 411.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The Assessee Rajesh Bansal has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 29/08/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, and the Assessee namely Malwa Packaging and also the Revenue have assailed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 26/08/2025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-23. Since, identical questions to be decided in the captioned appeals, the above Appeals are taken up together and the parties have made respective arguments.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 03/08/2022 against the Assessees and an assessment order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act against Rajesh Bansal (Appellate No. 1herein) and an assessment order dated 31/03/2024 also came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act against Malwa Packaging (Appellate No. 1 herein) by making certain additions. Aggrieved by the above said assessment orders Assessees have preferred appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 29/08/2025, partly allowed the appeals of the Assessees. As against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A)dated 29/08/2025, Assessee’s have preferred Appeal in ITA No. 6115/Del/2025 and 5756/Del/2025 respectively. The Revenue has filed Appeal in the case of Malwa Packaging in ITA No. 7586/Del/2025 by challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 26/08/2025.
3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) is bad in law as mandatory approval u/s 148B of the Act has not been obtained. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer has neither complied with the provision of Section 148 of the Act nor the provisions of Section 148B of the Act. The Ld. Counsel by relying on plethora of judicial precedents sought for allowing the Appeals of the Assessee and dismissal of the appeal of the Revenue.
4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessments have been framed in accordance with law and an additions have been made based on the merits, which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal, thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 03.08.2022 i.e. F.Y. 2022-23 relevant to A.Y. 2023-24. The A.Y. 2022 23 is the year immediately preceding the year of search. For the year under consideration the assessing officer has issued notice u/s 143(2) on 12/06/2023 and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. However, the Ld. A.O. has not complied with the provisions of section 148/148B of the Act. For the year under consideration i.e., A.Y. 2022- 23 the assessing officer was mandatorily required to follow the procedures as per section 148 of the Act for initiating the assessment proceedings and shall pass the assessment order after obtaining approval of specified authority under section 148B of the Act. It is not in dispute that the assessing officer has neither complied with the provisions of section 148 of the Act nor the provisions of section 148B of the Act. For the sake of ready reference, provisions of Explanation 2 to section 148B of the Act is reproduced as under: –
-“ Explanation 2. For the purposes of this section, where,
(1) a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A, on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, in the case of the assessee; or
(ii) a survey is conducted under section 133A, other than under sub-section (2A) of that section, on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, in the case of the assessee; or
(iii) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned under section 132 or section 132A in case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, belongs to the assessee; or
(iv) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, that any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned under section 132 or section 132A in case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relate to, the assessee,
the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to have information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee where the search is initiated or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned or survey is conducted in the case of the assessee or money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents are seized or requisitioned in case of any other person.
6. The Provision of section 148B of the Act is also reproduced as under: –
“148B. No order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this Act shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner, in respect of an assessment year to which clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) or clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to section 148 apply except with the prior approval of the Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director.]”
Memorandum explaining the provision of section 148B introduced by Finance Bill 2022 are as under: –
Clause 46 seeks to insert a new section 148B in the Income-tax Act relating to prior approval for assessment, reassessment or recomputation in certain cases.
The proposed new section seeks to provide that no order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under the Act shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner, except with the prior approval of the Additional Commissioner or Additional Director or Joint Commissioner or Joint Director, in respect of an assessment year to which clause (i), clause (ii), clause (iii) or clause (iv) of the Explanation 2 to section 148 apply.
This amendment will take effect from Ist April, 2022.”
7. From the above, for A.Y. 2022-23, the only permissible statutory course available to AO for initiating the assessment proceedings was to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act and to complete the assessment after obtaining prior approval u/s 148B of the Act before passing assessment order. In the present case, there has been no compliance by the AO either the provisions of section 148 of the Act or the provisions of section 148B of the Act. Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated and also assessment order passed by the AO is bad-in-law and without jurisdiction.
8. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-II, Noida, ITA No. 5458/ Del/ 2025 & 5906/ Del/ 2025 ITAT, vide order dated 29/12/2025 held as under: –
2. We notice at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of the impugned section 143(3) assessment itself framed by the learned DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida as per the assessee’s pleadings in its appeal ITA No.5458/Del/2025. A combined perusal of both these case files indicates that the assessee/ appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of flexible packaging material etc. It has filed its return for the impugned assessment year 2022-23 on 29.10.2022, declaring loss of Rs.64,53,88,702/-. And the same was taken for scrutiny. The learned departmental authorities thereafter carried out section 132 search action as well as section 133A survey in its case on 21.02.2023. There is further no dispute that the learned Assessing Officer then proceeded to frame the impugned assessment on 30th March, 2024 in its case inter alia making various disallowances/additions etc., involving varying sums, which stand partly upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion.
3. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee seeks to raise it’s precise question challenging validity of the impugned assessment for the sole reason that the same ought to have been framed under section 148 with approval under section 148B of the Act in light of Homelife Buildcon (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2025) 176 taxmann.com 614 (Chandigarh -Trib.) as relied in Jamna Das Nikkamal Jain Saraf Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITA No. 403/Chd./2025) decided on 04.11.2025, adjudicating the very issue against the department as under:
“11.4 In conclusion, it was submitted that since the year under appeal formed part of the three assessment years immediately preceding the year in which search was conducted, the assessment ought to have been framed under section 148 with approval u/s 148B. The framing of the assessment u/s 143(3) and approval taken only for the purposes of section 143(3) was thus asserted to be fundamentally defective, non-compliant with statutory mandate, and consequently void ab initio. On these grounds, following the ratio in Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., it was prayed that the impugned assessment be quashed.
12. The Ld. CIT-DR Shri Manav Bansal opposed the contention, stating that the return for A.Y. 2022-23 was filed prior to the date of search, and validly selected for scrutiny under CASS. The AO was competent to complete the assessment w/s 143(3).
12.1 He contended that section 148B applies only to “re assessment” and not to “regular assessments.” The AO’s approval from Addl. CIT, being in line with the CBDT Instruction No. 7/2022 dated 15.07.2022, fulfils the supervisory requirement. The DR also submitted that Homelife Buildcon is distinguishable, as the AO therein relied on third-party search data, whereas the present case is based on assessee’s own seized material.
13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. It is undisputed that search u/s 132 was conducted on 24.11.2022, relevant to A.Υ. 2023-24. Thus, A.Y. 2022 23 is one of the three preceding years under Explanation 2(iv) to section 148. The Explanation reads that if a search is initiated, “the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to have information suggesting escapement of income for the three assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is initiated.”
13.1 Therefore, the only permissible statutory course was to issue notice u/s 148 and obtain prior approval u/s 148B before passing assessment order.
13.2 As the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act without issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the question before us is whether the assessment proceedings initiated under section 143(3) of the Act can be validly continued and completed after a search under section 132 has been conducted in the case of the same assessee, without following the procedure prescribed under section 148 (Explanation 2) of the Act.
13.3 In our considered opinion, the answer lies in the scheme of the Act itself. Section 143 provides the general framework for regular assessment, whereas sections 147-148 (post-2021 regime) deal with reassessment based on information suggesting escapement of income, including that unearthed during a search.
13.4 A plain reading of section 143(2) shows that such notice can be issued only when a return of income is furnished under section 139 or in response to a notice under section 142(1). It empowers the Assessing Officer to scrutinize that return if he considers that income has been understated or tax underpaid. However, when a search under section 132 takes place and materials are found indicating possible escapement of income, the statute envisages a different route for carrying out assessment or reassessment under section 147 read with section 148, which is the special mechanism for bringing to tax the income discovered in consequence of a search.
13.5 Although section 148 (inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2021) does not begin with a non-obstante clause similar to the erstwhile section 153A, its context and Explanation 2 make it clear that where a search is initiated, the jurisdiction thereafter must flow through this special channel, subject to prior satisfaction and approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The legislative intent is to ensure that when a search is carried out, the assessment is framed under the specific provisions meant for such cases and not under the general provision of section 143(3). Further we may mention that no notice under section 143(2) could have been issued after 3 months from the from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. In the present case the original return of income was filled on 4/11/2022 for the assessment year 202223 and 143 (2) was issued on 21/6/2023, therefore also the assessment was framed under 143(3) of the Act is not sustainable. In other words the time required for issuing the notice under 143(2) had already expired, and the revenue can not be allowed to issued issue 143(2) on 21.6.2023 after the search was carried out and notice had been issued on 21.6.2023 and assessment was framed under 143(3) of the Act. The relevant portion of section 143(3) reads as under:-
143(2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return:
Provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be issued after the expiry of three months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished.
13.6 This position finds substantial support from the ratio of various decisions of Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Courts unanimously held that once a search has been conducted and proceedings are triggered under section 153A, the Assessing Officer cannot continue parallel proceedings under section 143(3) or section 147 for the same assessment year, because the entire assessment for that year stands merged in the search assessment. The Courts emphasized that the existence of a special procedure for assessment consequent to a search is a complete code in itself: 5 Page ITA Nos. 5458/Del/2025 & 5906/Del/2025 therefore, ordinary assessments abate and cannot coexist with the search-based assessment.
13.7 Drawing this analogy to the current regime, it is evident that when a search takes place and information is unearthed suggesting escapement of income, the Assessing Officer must act under section 148 (which now performs the role formerly assigned to section 1534) rather than continuing with a pending section to prevent 143(3) proceeding. The legislative intent remains the same multiplicity of proceedings and ensure that only one comprehensive order is passed, factoring in both the pre-search and postsearch materials.
13.8 The rationale is further reinforced by the well-settled principle of generaliaspecialibus non derogant the special provision overrides the general. Section 148 (as a special provision triggered by search information) must prevail over section 143 (the general provision for regular scrutiny). Allowing the Assessing Officer to continue and conclude proceedings under section 143(3) after a search would defeat this legislative scheme and render the safeguards, such as prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, redundant.
13.9 Accordingly, we hold that once a search is initiated under section 132 and material is found relating to the assessee, the pending assessment under section 143(3) cannot validly continue, as the time for issuing the 143(2) in response to original return of income had already expired, therefore the Assessing Officer must necessarily proceed in accordance with the special provisions contained in section 148 of the Act.”
4. Learned CIT(DR) representing the Revenue vehemently supports the impugned assessment that the Assessing Officer had rightly finalized the same under the normal provision once the entire issue was pending before him as on the date of search.
5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement submissions. We find merit in the assessee’s legal ground herein once the impugned search had taken place in its case, no normal assessment under section 6 | P age ITA Nos.5458/Del/2025 & 5906/Del/2025 143(3) of the Act could have been framed in light of the tribunal’s foregoing twin decisions going against the department. We thus adopt the above extracted reason mutatis mutandis to quash the impugned assessment framed by the learned Assessing Officer on 30th March, 2024 in very terms.
1.2. In the case of M/s Malbros International Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT Central Circle-2 Ludhiana and (Vice-Versa) And M/s Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Central Circle-2 Ludhiana and (Vice-Versa), 2026 (1) TMI 983 ITAT Chandigarh wherein it was held as under: –
11. The Ld. CIT-DR has referred to CBDT Circular F.No.225/66/2023/ITA-II dated 24-05-2023 to state that the jurisdiction was validly acquired by Ld. AO. However, the said circular merely in the nature of guidelines for compulsory selection of returns for complete scrutiny during the financial year 2023-24. After going through the Circular, we find that this circular merely contains parameters for compulsory selection of returns for complete scrutiny. The relevant clause 2(ii) which apply to the facts of present case, provide that assessment in search & seizure cases / requisition cases u/s 132/132A conducted on or after 01-04-2021 shall be selected with prior administrative approval of Pr. CIT / Pr. DIT / CIT/DIT concerned who shall ensure that such cases are transferred to central charges u/s 127 of the Act within 15 days of service of notice u/s 143(2)/142(1) of the act by the jurisdictional AO. The same is thus merely administrative in nature and prescribe a procedure to be followed in search cases which have been conducted after 01-04-2021. The same do not address the various legal issues as raised by Ld. AR before us and which have been enumerated in preceding paragraphs. Therefore, this circular does not render any assistance to the case of the revenue.
12. Finally, considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we would hold that the assessment ought to have been framed under special provisions of Sec.148. To undertake the same, approval of specified authority as envisaged u/s 148B was required to be taken which is not shown to have been taken. Further, the approval of appropriate authority stood vitiated for application of mind. The procedure as required under the provisions of Sec. 148 is not shown to have been fulfilled in the present case. The approval as sought by Ld. AO of the order u/s 143(3) is non-est/bad in law and the granting of the approval of the order u/s 143(3) by the Addl. CIT is null and void and thus, assessment as framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 26-03-2024 deserves to be quashed on various legal grounds. We order so. Since the assessment order has been quashed on legal grounds, delving into the merits of the case has been rendered mere academic in nature. However, for the sake of completeness we deal with the merits of the additions also which has been raised in these cross-appeals.”
11. In the case of Deepak Agarwal, C/o- Kapil Goel, Adv, Vs DCIT, CC- 25, New Delhi, reported in 2025 (10) TMI 1101, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal held as under: –
10. Sixth issue is specific to AY 2021-22, and the Id. counsel has raised a ground that the impugned assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act is vitiated as the same is on the basis of the search action on the assessee dated 17.11.2021 and is contrary to the mandate of Explanation (2)(i) of section 148 of the Act. In AY 2021-22, assessment for this particular year is subject to search action u/s 132 of the Act on 17.11.2021. Assessee filed regular return u/s 139(1) of the Act on 15.03.2022 with income declared of Rs. 37,69,390. Assessee case for this year was selected for scrutiny u/s 143(2) of the Act vide notice dated 03.06.2022. Ld. Counsel has submitted that it could only be taken u/s 148 Expl. 2 under deemed escapement clause and not u/s 143(2)/143(3) of the Act. The above scrutiny action was founded /initiated on basis of impugned approval of PCIT (Central) Delhi dated 28.06.2022. This approval is also subject matter of assail from assessee side being rubber stamp/mechanical and with only “approved” remarks and “unsigned” on face of it. Then centralization order u/s 127 of the Act was passed on 03.01.2022 by PCIT Central. Admittedly the impugned assessment action is made u/s 143(3) of the Act vide impugned assessment order dated 11.02.2023. Same mentions that approval is taken on 15.07.2022 from Range Head.
10.1 It is submitted by ld. Counsel that after 01.04.2021 vide Finance Act 2021, legislature made a policy shift in assessment of search related matters and search cases which were earlier separately assessed u/s 153A/153C of the Act respectively for searched and non searched person, said search related cases are brought under ambit of Sec 148 of the Act by way of reopening under income escaping assessment vide Explanation 2 to sec 148 of the Act which in turn deals with deemed escapement cases. The relevant date is search action initiated after 01.04.2021. Notably for search action after 01.09.2024, again block assessment scheme u/s 158B to Sec 158 BI has been inserted vide Finance No 2 Act 2024 w.e.f 01.09.2024. It was submitted that in case of assessee search action u/s 132 of the Act is after 01.04.2021 and before 01.09.2024 that is, 17.11.2021. So relevant applicable provision could be only Section 148 read with Explanation 2 clause (i) covering deemed escapement clause. Thus present action of revenue by taking recourse to Section 143(2)/143(3) of the Act, which is general provision is totally unlawful and invalid.
10.2 Ld. Counsel submitted that effect has to be given to words “deemed to have escaped assessment” under Expl. 2 to sec 148 of the Act. Further present situation is same where under erstwhile assessment u/s 153A of the Act, courts have held that for assessment falling u/s 153A of the Act, recourse cannot be had to general provision u/s 143(3) of the Act. Further the legislature has used word “shall” in Explanation 2 to Section 148 of the Act, which supports assessee’s contention. This is more so when entire impugned assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act is solely founded on information /material emanating from search action u/s132 of the Act and it is not a case of general assessment based on routine or non Rearch issues. Reference was made to Hon’ble Apex court decibose in case of UOI vs Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46, where it has been held that;
“If a statute expressly confers a power or imposes a duty on a particular authority, then such power or duty must be exercised or performed by that authority itself. Further, when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner, then that authority has to exercise its power following the prescribed manner. Any exercise of power by statutory authorities inconsistent with the statutory prescription is invalid.”
10.3 Ld. Counsel has relied Hon’ble Apex Court decision in case of Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Bank Marayadit vs Zila Sahakarikendriya Bank Maryadit 2020 6 SCC 411 to submit that the general provision operates, save and except in situations covered by the specific provision. The rationale behind this principle of statutory construction is that were there appears a conflict between two provisions, it must be presumed that the legislature did not intend a conflict and a subject-specific provision governs those situations in exclusion to the operation of the general provision.
From the above, it is evident that the issue involved in the present appeals stands covered in the favour of the assessee by the decision of various coordinate benches of the Hon’ble ITAT.
In view of the above, thus, the assessment framed u/s 143(3) for A.Y. 2022-23 is bad-in-law and without jurisdiction, and the same is liable to be quashed.”
9. In view of the fact that for the year under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 2002-23, the A.O. has failed to obtain approval of specified authority u/s 148B of the Act thereby violated the provision of Section and also neither complied the provision of section 148 nor the provision of Section 148 of the Act, by following the ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-II, Noida and other decisions mentioned supra. We set aside the assessment orders passed against the Assessees for the year under consideration, accordingly Assessees Appeals in ITA No. 6115/Del/2025 and 5756/Del/2025 are allowed.
10. Since, we have set aside the assessment order in ITA No. 5756/Del/2025, appeal o f the Revenue in ITA No. 7586/Del/2025 becomes in-fructuous, accordingly, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st May, 2026
Author Bio
