Rajesh Bansal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Summary: ITAT Delhi quashed the assessments of Rajesh Bansal and Malwa Packaging for Assessment Year 2022-23, holding that after a search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act conducted on 03.08.2022, the Assessing Officer could not complete regular assessments under Section 143(3) without following the special statutory procedure under Section 148 and obtaining the prior approval mandated by Section 148B. The search was conducted during FY 2022-23, relevant to AY 2023-24, while AY 2022-23 was the immediately preceding assessment year. The AO nevertheless issued notice under Section 143(2) on 12.06.2023 and completed the assessments under Section 143(3).
The Tribunal noted that Explanation 2 to Section 148 deemed the AO to possess information suggesting escapement of income in specified search cases. Consequently, for AY 2022-23, the permissible statutory course was to initiate proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 148 and, before passing the assessment order, obtain approval of the specified authority under Section 148B. Neither requirement was complied with. The Tribunal followed Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT/ACIT, which had applied Jamna Dass Nikkamal Jain Saraf Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT and Homelife Buildcon (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT, for the proposition that the post-2021 search regime requires recourse to the special reassessment mechanism rather than continuation of an ordinary Section 143(3) assessment. It also considered Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT and Deepak Agarwal v. DCIT.
