Govintharaj Balakrishnan Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
PCIT Approval Not Enough After 3 Years: Section 151 Is Not Empty Formality: Jurisdictional Lapse Fatal
In Govintharaj Balakrishnan Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Virudhunagar, ITA No.2780/Chny/2025, AY 2018-19, order dated 31.12.2025, Chennai ITAT allowed Assessee’s appeal & quashed reassessment proceedings on jurisdictional ground. Assessee had originally filed return declaring salary income of ₹1.92 lakh. AO reopened assessment on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits of ₹51.63 lakh in a cooperative bank & completed reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B, making full addition, which was confirmed by CIT(A).
Before Tribunal, Assessee raised an additional legal ground contending that reopening was bad for lack of valid sanction u/s 151. Tribunal noted that reopening was initiated after three years from end of AY 2018-19, for which mandatory approval of PCCIT/PDG was required under section 151(ii). However, AO had obtained approval only from PCIT, Madurai-1, which was not the competent authority. Tribunal held that sanction by wrong authority strikes at the root of jurisdiction & renders notice u/s 148 invalid. Consequently, reassessment was held bad in law & quashed, making other grounds academic.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.09.2025 the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19.
