Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Inderjyot Singh,New Delhi vs Ito Ward 44(1), Delhi on 22 January, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'SMC', NEW DELHI
Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member
ITA No. 8758/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18
Inderjyot Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer,
6/2, DLF Indl. Area, Moti Nagar, Ward-44(1),
New Delhi-110015 New Delhi-110002
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. ABYPS9796E
Assessee by: Sh. Rajesh Dureja, Adv.
Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 22.01.2026
ORDER
This assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the CIT( A)/NFAC , New Delhi's DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082168393(1) dated 30.10.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short " the Act").
2. Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.
3. It emerges at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of se ction 148 proce edings herein between the parties wherein the learned Assessing Officer had issued his cor responding notice dated 30 .0 7.2022 for assessment year 2017-18 in question i.e. beyond the prescribed period of three years from the end of the releva nt assessment year after getting approval of the PCIT-15, Delhi 2 ITA No. 8758/Del/2025 Inderjyot Singh only. This be ing the clinching factual positio n, the assessee has quoted hon'b le jurisdictio nal high cour t' s decisio n that in such an ins tance, the necessary sanction could not be obtained from the PCIT as the facts herein, in light of Communist Party of India (M) Vs. ITO, (2025) 174 taxmann.com 925 (Del.) deciding the very issue against the departme nt as follow s:
"7. The l earn ed AO wa s not persuad ed with the explanati on pr ovid ed by the pet itioner a nd pass ed an ord er dated 29.07.2022 under S ec tio n 148A (d) of the Act , ho lding tha t it was a fit cas e for reop ening the assessment proceedi ngs und er Sec t ion 147/1 48 of the A ct. The said ord er was is s ued with t he a pprova l of the C ommissio ner of Inc om e Ta x (Exempt ion) [C IT(E)] on an assumption th at the C IT (E) wa s a s pecified a u thority und er the provis ions of S ect i on 151 of the A c t.
8. The AO issu ed a not ice dat ed 2 9.07 .202 2 unde r S ecti on 148 of th e Ac t a ccompan ied with the ord er da ted 29.07.2022 pas s ed under S ect ion 1 48A (d) of the A ct. It is th e petit ion er's c ase that the said no tice is barr ed by limitat ion.
9. I t is material t o n ote t ha t the original notice un der S ection 148 of the A ct [deemed to be a show cause no tice und er Sec tion 148A (b) of the A ct in terms of th e decisi on in th e cas e of Un ion of India & Ors . v. A shish Agarw al (supra )] wa s is sue d on 28.06.2021, th at is, tw o days prior to the exp ir y o f the limit at ion period a s ext end ed b y v irtu e of the Ta xa tion a nd O ther Laws (R ela xation a nd Am end men t of C erta in Provis io ns) A ct, 2020 [TOL A]. Th us, t he A O had tw o day s t o iss ue t he notice unde r Sec tion 148 of t he Act after rec eiving th e reply da ted 08. 06.2022 fil ed by th e petit ioner. Sinc e t h e sa id p eriod w as less tha n seven days, th e AO h ad, by virt ue of the fou rth provis o to S ect ion 149 (1) of the Act, seven da ys t o pass an order under S ection 14 8A (d) of the A ct (whic h was nec essari ly requi red to ac company a n otic e under S ecti on 148 of th e A ct). T h e said perio d expi red o n 1 6.06.2022. Ther efo re, the order pa ssed un der Sec tion 1 48A(d) of t he Act wa s beyond th e peri od of limitat ion .
10. The imp ugned n otice is als o liable t o be set aside on th e gro und tha t it wa s issued wit hou t the approva l o f th e au thority s pec ifi ed under Section 151 of t he Act . S ince th e imp ugned noti ce w as issued beyond the peri od of t hree years f rom the en d of t he relevant as sessment year, th u s, in t erms of Sec tion 151(i i) of the Act, the same was 3 ITA No. 8758/Del/2025 Inderjyot Singh requi red to be a ppro ved by th e P rincipa l C hief C om missi oner or Pr incipal D irect or G eneral or wh ere t her e is no s uch authori ty, by C hief C om missioner o r D i rec tor Genera l. The det ermin ation of th e sp ec ified authorit y for gr ant of app rova l und er Sec tion 151 o f the A ct depend s on whether th e not ic e under Section 148 of th e A ct has been is s ued a ft er the expiry of three yea rs from the end of th e relevant ass ess ment year or w ithin th e sa id per iod.
11. Sect ion 151 of t he A c t ( as amend ed by the F inan ce Act, 202 1) a s in forc e o n t he date of issua nce of notice r ead as und er:
"151 . S anc t ion for is sue of notic e.- S pecified authorit y for th e purp oses o f sec tion 148 and s ecti on 148A shall be,-
(i) Princ ipal C omm is sioner or P rincipal Directo r or C om missi oner or D irecto r, if t hree yea rs or less th an t hree years have elapsed fr om the end of the relevant as s essment year;
(ii) Princ ipal C hief Com miss ioner o r Prin cipal D irect or Genera l or where there is n o P rincipa l C hief C om missi oner or Principal Director Gener al, C hief C om missi oner o r D irect or Gen eral, if more tha n th ree yea rs ha ve elap sed from the end of th e relevant as s essment year. "
12. The ques ti on w het her the sanct ion in respect of notices th at were is su ed d uring the period of limit at ion as ext en ded by TOLA requi red t he pri o r s anction i n terms of S ection 151 of the Ac t , as in forc e aft er 31.03.20 21 or a s in force p ri or to the sa id da te, has fell for consi d er a tion of this court in sev era l ca ses including T wylig ht In frastru ct ure Pvt . Ltd. v. Inco me Ta x Offic er Ward 25 3 Delhi & Ors.: Neutra l C itat ion N o.2024:D HC :25 9-DB and A bhi na v Jind al HU F v. Incom e Ta x Officer Wa rd 5 4(1) Delhi & Ors.: Neutral C itat ion No.:
202 4:DHC :7238-DB. Th is court had h eld th at TOLA would ha ve no releva nce fo r d etermining t he sp ecified auth ority whose a pproval w as m andatory un der S ection 151 of th e A ct for issuance of a notic e u nder Sect ion 1 48 of the A ct.
We cons id er it a p posit e t o refer to the follow ing ext ract from the decis ion of this court in Abhina v Jind al HUF v. Inco me Ta x Officer Ward 54(1) Del hi & Ors. (supra). T he same is s et out bel ow:
"17. A s was noticed in the introduct ory p art s of this decis io n, t he resp on dent s had, c ontrary to the above , argued tha t once a notice fo r reass essment co mes to b e is s ued after the expiry of fo ur y ear s by virtu e of t he extended period of time m ade availa ble b y TOLA, all th e imp ugned not ic es would fall within the ken of sub- s ection (2) of th e pre -am endment S ect ion 151 a nd 4 ITA No. 8758/Del/2025 Inderjyot Singh c ons eq uent ly t he sanction and approva l accord ed b y th e JCIT would be in ac cord ance wit h law.
*** *** ***
38. It would the ref ore be w ho lly incorrect to read TO LA as intending t o amend the d istribution of pow er or t he c ategoriz ation envis aged a nd pres crib ed by S ection 151. The add itional t ime tha t th e said statu te provided to an au thority c an not possibly be constr ued as altering o r modifying t he hierarchy or the structure set up b y S ection 15 1 of t he Act . The iss ue of approval w ould st i ll be lia ble to be an swered bas ed on whet her t he reas ses s ment wa s com menced a ft er or wit hin a period of four years f rom t h e end of the rel evant A Y o r a s per th e am end ed regime dependent upon whether a ction w as being propos ed wi t hin three years of the en d of th e relev ant A Y or therea ft er. T he bi furcat ion of th os e po wers would co n tinue un altered a nd unaffected by TO LA .
39. The fallac y of the submission addressed by th e resp ondents bec om es ev en m ore ev id ent whe n we wei gh in c onsiderat ion the fact that even if the reassessment ac tion w ere init iat ed, as per the extended TO LA ti melin es , an d thus after the p eriod o f fou r years, S ection 15 1 inc orp orated adequa te m ea sures t o deal wit h su ch a co ntin gency a nd in una mbiguous terms identified t he au thority wh ich was to be moved for th e purposes of s anct ion and app roval. S ection 151 dis tributed the p owers of approval am ongst a set of s pec ified aut horit ies based upon the la pse of tim e between the end of the relevant A Y and t he dat e when reas ses s ment wa s proposed . Thus even if t he reas ses s ment was propos ed t o be ini t iat ed wit h the aid of TOL A a ft er t he expiry of four yea rs from th e end of th e re leva nt A Y, the aut horit y s ta tut ori ly emp ow ered t o c onfer a pproval wo uld be t he Principal C hi ef C om missi oner / Chief C omm issioner /Prin cipal C om missi oner /C o mmiss ioner. It w ou ld only be in a cas e where t he reas ses sm ent w as p ropos ed to be initiated befo re the exp iry of fou r years f r om the en d of th e relev ant A Y t hat a pproval c ould h ave been a cco rded b y th e J CI T. S imila r would be th e po sition wh ich would em erg e if t he ac tions were t ested o n th e basis of th e am end ed Sec t ion 151 and wh ich divides the pow er of s anc tion amongs t two set s of au thoriti es ba sed on whether reas s ess m ent is c omm enc ed withi n three yea rs or thereaft er. "
13. In Twylight I nfra st ructu re P vt . Ltd. v. Income Ta x Offic er W ard 2 5 3 D elhi & Ors.(supra), a C oordina te Bench of this c ourt exa mine d the validity of initiation of reasses s ment pr oc eedings, in ca ses where the incom e 5 ITA No. 8758/Del/2025 Inderjyot Singh all eged to have es ca ped as sessment was R s.50,00,0 00/- or less . In th e afore sa id context, this court also considered th e q uestion a s to th e specified au thority, whose p ri or ap prov al was requi red and hel d a s under:
"10. A s indic at ed a bove, t he specif i ed authorit y changes depend ing on the t ime lim it prescribed in section 1 51 o f th e A ct. I t is on this a cc ou nt that there is a linka ge betw een ruling ren dered i n Gan esh Dass Khanna [Ganesh Dass K han na v. I TO, ( 2024) 460 ITR 546 (D elhi) ; 20 23 SC C On Line Del 7286; 2 023 : D HC : 8187-DB.] and the instan t ma tt ers.
11. It may a ls o b e noted that i n Ganesh Da ss Khann a [Ganes h D as s K hanna v. ITO, (2 024) 460 ITR 546 (Delhi); 202 3 S CC OnLi ne Del 72 86; 2023 : D HC : 8187-DB .], w e ha d reco rded t he s t and of the R evenue th at the issu e conc erning limitat ion and the specified authority ar e "intert wined". F or convenience , th e relevan t part of th e j udgm ent is ex tra cted hereaft er (pa ge 567 of 460 ITR):
"24. On b ehalf of the R evenue, the fo ll owing broa d s ubm issions were ma de:... ...
(viii) Bot h under t he u namended 1961 Act and amended 196 1 Act , t he iss ue con ce rning l imit ation is inextrica bly int ert wined w ith tw o as pects:
(a) Firs t, t he rank of the au tho rity g rant ing ap proval/s an ct ion for t rigge ring reassessmen t pr oceed ings .
(b) S econ d, the quantum of income whic h h as escaped ass es s ment."
(Empha sis is o urs)
12. C lea rly, th e R evenue advanced the argu men t of int erl in kag e b etw een limit at ion a nd the ascert ainm ent of th e s pec ified a uth ority due to t he p lain languag e of th e am end ed sect ion 1 51 of the Ac t. Section 151 , when read alo ngside t he firs t provi so t o s ectio n 148, b rings th e as pec t of inext ric a ble l inkage to t he for e.
12.1. C laus es (i) a nd (ii) of section 1 51 of the am ended A ct (which has been ext ra cted hereinabove) c learl y s pec ify the a uthor ity wh ose a pprova l can trigger th e reas ses s ment proc eedi ngs . Thus, if t hree (3) yea r s or less h ave e lapsed from the end of t he relevan t as sess ment year, the specified authorit y who would gr ant approval fo r i nitia tion of reasses sment proceedings will be t he Pri nci pal Comm issioner or Principal D irecto r or C ommissio ner or Di rect or. H owe ver, if m ore th an th ree (3) years f rom th e end of the relevant assessmen t year h ave ela ps ed, the spec ified au thority fo r acco rd ing ap prov al for the reass essment shall be the Princip al 6 ITA No. 8758/Del/2025 Inderjyot Singh C hief C om mis sioner or P rincipa l Directo r Gen eral or, where the re is n o Princ ipal C hief C ommission er or Princ ipal D irecto r General , Chief C omm issi oner or Di rec to r Gen era l.
12.2. That t he a pproval is man dat ory is pla inly eviden t on p erus a l of t he firs t proviso a ppen ded to section 148 of t he A ct . The s aid provis o, at t he risk o f rep eti tion, reads as foll ows :
"Pr ovided tha t no no tice u nder th is section shall b e is s ued unl ess t here is informat ion wit h t he Assessing Offic er whic h su ggests tha t the income charg eabl e to ta x ha s es ca ped a sses sm ent in th e ca se of the a ss essee for th e releva nt as s essment year an d the A ssessing Officer ha s obta ined prio r approval o f the s pecifi ed auth orit y to is s ue s uch n otic e."
12.3. In these ca ses , the re is no dis put e th at al thou gh th ree (3) yea rs had ela psed from th e end of t he relevan t as sess ment year, t he a ppro va l was sought from the au thorities s pec ifie d in c laus e (i), as against clau se (ii) of sec ti on 15 1.
12.4. B efore us, th e counsel for the R evenue con tinue t o hold t his position. The only libert y t ha t they seek is that if, ba sed on the jud gment in Ganesh Dass K hanna [Ganes h D ass Khanna v. I TO, (2024 ) 46 0 ITR 546 (D elhi); 2023 SCC O nLin e Del 728 6; 202 3: DHC : 81 87- DB .], the impugned ord ers and n oti ces are set aside, libe rty b e given to the R evenue to comm ence th e reas ses s ment proc eedings afresh.
13. Therefore, h avin g regard t o t he aforesaid , th e imp ugned not ic es a nd ord ers in e ac h of t he a bove- c apt ioned wr it peti t ions ar e qu ashed on the gr ound tha t th ere is no ap pr oval of t he spec i fied au thority, as indi ca ted in s ec ti on 151(ii) of the Act. The direction is is s ued wit h t he ca veat tha t the R evenue w ill h ave lib ert y to t ak e st eps , if deemed n eces sary , al b eit as per law."
14. In J M Financia l & Investm ent s C onsulta ncy S ervices Privat e L imit ed v. AC IT, C irc le 3(2)(1) & O rs., W.P. No. 105 0/2020, dec ided on 04.04. 2022, t he Bo mba y High Court ha d m ade observat ions to th e effect t hat even i f the t ime t o is s ue not ice m ay have been ext ende d b y T OLA , the sam e would not am end the p rovis ions of S ection 151 of t he Act. The rele vant ext rac t of the sa id decis i on is set out be low :
"5. R es pon dent s h ave relied upon a lett er dated 18t h Marc h 2021 iss ued by one Income Tax Office r, who has giv en an o pin ion to t he A dditional Commi ssione r o f Inco me Tax tha t in view of th e Taxati on and othe r L aws (Rela xa tion of Ce rt ain Pro vis ion s) A ct, 2020 (Relaxati on 7 ITA No. 8758/Del/2025 Inderjyot Singh A ct), lim itat ion, in ter alia, unde r pr ovisio ns of Secti on 151 (1) a nd S ect ion 151(2 ), whic h w ere o riginally expirin g on 31st March 2020 stand exten ded t o 3 1st Marc h 2 021. A c cord ing to the Inco me Tax O fficer, in view of th e ab ove , A ss ess ment Year 2015-2016 which falls under the c at egory within fou r years as on 3 1st Marc h 20 20, the statutory ap proval for issuance o f notice und er Sec t ion 148 o f the A ct for t he A ssessmen t Year 2015-2 016 m ay be given by the R ange Head as per th e sa id p rovis ions . Mr. S harma clarif i es t hat t he Incom e Ta x Offic er is only co nveying t he view of t he Princip al C om missi oner of I ncome Tax b ec ause this l ett er has been is sued on t he letterhead of P rin ci pal C om missioner of Inc om e Tax.
6. Even for a mom ent we agree with the view expressed by the Princ ipal Com miss ioner of In co me Ta x, still it ap plies to only c ases where the lim it a tion was expi ring on 31s t March 202 0. In the cas e at hand, th e as sess ment year i s 20 15-201 6 and, th erefo re, the si x years lim itation w ill expire only on 31st Ma rch 2022. C ertain ly, th erefo re, t he R elaxat ion Act provisions ma y not b e appl ica ble. In a ny event, the time to issue not ice ma y hav e been ex tended but th at would not amount t o am end ing the provisions o f S ection 151 of t he A ct.
7. In our vi ew , si nce fou r years had expired fr om th e en d of th e releva nt a ssessme nt year, as pro vided unde r S ection 151(1 ) o f the Act, it is o nly t he Principal C hief C om missi oner or C hief C omm issioner or Pri ncipal C om missi oner or C om miss ioner who c ould have accorded th e approva l a nd not the Additio nal C omm issioner of Inco me Ta x. O n th is g roun d alon e, w e will ha ve t o set as ide the n otice dated 31st March 202 1 issued under S ection 148 of the Ac t, whic h is imp ugned i n this petit ion. In view t hereof, the consequent orders and notices wil l als o have to go."
[em phasis added]
15. In a latte r dec is io n in Siemens F inan cia l Services P vt. Ltd. v. Deput y C om miss ioner of In come-T ax & Ors.:2 023 S CC On Line Bo m 2822, the B ombay High C o urt re iterated th e sa id view i n t he follow ing words:
"24. A s per sec tion 151 of the A ct, the " sp ec ified au thority " w ho has to grant his sanctio n for t he purpos es of s ect i on 1 48 a nd sect ion 1 48A is the Principa l C hief C om missi oner o r Principal Dir ec to r Genera l or wher e th ere is n o P rinc i pa l C hief Co mmissioner or Princip al Di rec to r G ene ral, t he Ch ief C om mis sione r or D irector Genera l if mo re t h an t hree years h ave elapsed from th e en d of t he relev ant ass es smen t year. Th e p res en t petit ion r elates t o th e a ss es sment year 2016-17, and as 8 ITA No. 8758/Del/2025 Inderjyot Singh th e im pugned o rd er an d impugned notice a re issue d beyon d the pe ri od of three yea rs w hic h elapsed on March 31, 2 020 the a pp roval as co ntempla ted in sectio n 15 1(i i) of the Ac t w ould ha ve to be ob tained which has n ot been do ne b y th e A s ses si ng Officer. The imp ugned not ice mentions that the prior appr ova l has been tak en of th e "Pr inc ipal Commissione r of Inc ome -ta x-8" ("PC IT-8") whic h is bad in law as the approva l shou ld ha ve been ob tained in t erms of sect ion 151(ii) and not secti on 151 (i) of t he A ct an d t he Principa l C ommissioner of Inco me- tax-8 cannot be t he specified au tho rity a s per s ection 15 1 o f the A c t. F urth er, even in the affida vit-in- reply , th e Department h as accept ed that the approval ob tained is of the "P rincipa l C omm issioner of Incom e- ta x-8" and, he nce, such an a pproval would be ba d in law .
25. The Ta xat ion a nd Other Laws (R elaxat ion a nd A mendment of Certain P rovisions) A ct, ena cted on S eptem ber 29 , 2020 an d came int o fo rc e on March 31, 202 0 ([202 0] 428 ITR ( St .) 29 ). I t, inter a lia, p rovided for a relaxati on of certa in pro visi ons of the Income-ta x A ct, 1961. Where any time lim it fo r compl eti on or c omp lianc e of a n action such a s c omplet ion of an y pr oceed ings or pa s sing of any ord er or issuan ce o f an y notice f ell between t he period Marc h 20 , 2 020 t o Decemb er 31, 2 020, t he time limit for complet ion o f s uc h a c tion stood extended to Ma rch 3 1 , 2021. Thus, th e Ta xat ion and O ther Laws (R ela xation and Am end ment of C ertain Prov isi ons ) Act o nly seeks to extend the period of lim itat ion and d oes not affect th e scop e of secti on 151 .
26. The As s es sing Office r cannot rel y on the pro visions of the Taxa tion and Othe r L aw s (Relaxa tio n and A mendment of C ert ain Provisi ons) Act and the notific atio ns iss ued thereu nder as s ection 15 1 has been am end ed b y the Fi nance A ct, 202 1 an d t he p rov isions of th e a mended s ect i on would have t o be c omplied w ith b y th e As sess ing Officer, w ith eff ect f rom A pril 1, 2021. Henc e, the As s es sing O fficer ca nnot seek t o ta ke t he s helter of t he Ta xat ion a nd Ot her Laws (R elaxat ion and A mendment of C ert ain Provis ion s) Act as a su bord inat e legislatio n cannot override an y statute enact ed b y Pa rlia ment . Further , the notifica tio n extending the dates from Ma rc h 31 , 2 02 1 till Ju ne 30 , 2021 ca nnot appl y on ce th e F inanc e A ct , 2021 is in e xis tence. Th e sancti on of the s pe cifi ed a utho rit y has t o be obtain ed in ac cordanc e with the law exist ing w hen the sanctio n is ob tained and, therefore, the sa nction is req uired to b e ob tained by a pplying the a mended section 151(i i) of t he A ct and s ince the s anc tion h as been obt ained in term s of s ection 151(i) of the Act , the impug ned order and 9 ITA No. 8758/Del/2025 Inderjyot Singh imp ugned not ice are b ad in law a nd should b e quashed an d s et as ide. "
16. I n R amac han dra n S hiv an v. Inc om e Tax Office r, W.P. N o. 8570/20 23 and oth er conn ected matters, decided on 04.03.2024 , the Madras High C ourt also refe rre d to t he decis io ns of th e Bo mbay High C ourt a s well as t he decisi on of this co urt in Tw ylight Infrast ructur e Pvt. Ltd. v. Inco m e Ta x Office r Wa rd 25 3 D elhi & Ors. (supra ) and expres sed th e simila r v iew. The releva nt extra ct of the said d ecision is se t out bel ow :
"13. The o rders and not ices a re challenged herein no t on th e groun d t hat the t ime limi t under pre-am ended s ection 1 49 d oes n ot app ly, but on t he ground that s anc tion w as not g rant ed by the specified aut hor ity. Therefore, it remain s to be conside red as to whether t he ap plicati on of the p rovis o t o sec tion 149 has the effect of incorp orat ing b y reference t o p re-a mended secti on 151 . In ord er t o substan tiat e the cont ent ion t hat pre- am end ed sec tion 151 gets in co rporat ed by reference , learn ed s tanding cou nsel reli ed o n sub-sect ion (2) to the pr e-am end ed sec ti on 149. It should be noti ced tha t the pr ovis o to s ub-s ection (1) of th e amended sect ion 149 do es n ot even inc orp orate th e whole of pre-am ended s ection 1 49. It m erel y mak es the time limit p rescrib e d th erein a pplic abl e t o the issua nce of not ices for reas ses s ment in respec t of any assessm ent yea r beginnin g before A pril 1, 2021. A fortio ri the provis o c ert ainl y does n ot inc orpo rate pre-amende d section 151 by ref erence and ma ke it applic able.
14. The next question t o be examined is the im pact of th e Ta xa tion and Oth er Law s (Relaxati on a nd A mendment of C erta in Provisions) Act, 2020. U ndou btedly, th e Taxa tion and Oth er Law s (Relaxati on an d A men dment of C ertain Pr ovision s) Act , 2 020 extended the t ime lim its under spe cified enactm ents, inc ludi ng th e Inc om e-t ax A ct . A s per clause (a )(ii) of s ub-s ection(1) of s ect ion 3 there of, t i me limi ts for gran t of s an ct ion or a pproval were a lso ex tended . Sin ce th e petit ioner d oes not challenge the sanction w ith respec t to t he tim e l imit, cla use (a) of sub-sect ion (1) of secti on 3 is im mat erial. I ndeed, th e Taxat i on and O ther Laws (Rela xa tion and A mendm ent of C erta in Provisi ons) A ct, 202 0, w hic h extends the time l imits for comp letion of s pec ified tas ks up to March 31, 20 21, itself becomes irre lev ant beca us e of the na ture of the challenge in th ese writ p eti tion s.
15. I n S iemen s Fina ncial S ervices [Siem ens Fina ncial S ervic es Pvt. Lt d. v. D y. C IT, (2023 ) 457 ITR 647 (Bom ); 2023 S CC OnLine Bo m 2822; (202 3) 15 4 ta xmann.com 159 (Bo m).] , the Division Bench of th e 10 ITA No. 8758/Del/2025 Inderjyot Singh B om bay High C ou rt concluded, in substantially simila r fac ts and c irc um stances, t hat the a mend ed sectio n 15 1 an d no t t he prea men ded section 1 51 would app ly. F or reas ons set out ab ove, I concur with t he conclusion in S iem ens F inan cia l Servic es [S iem ens F inancial S ervices Pv t. Ltd . v. D y. CI T, (2023) 457 ITR 647 (B om); 2 023 S CC OnLine Bom 2822; (20 23) 154 t axm ann .com 159 (Bom ).] and Ga nesh Das Khanna v. ITO [(2024) 460 ITR 546 (D elhi); (20 2 3) 6 HC C (D el) 516; (2023) 156 ta xmann.com 417 (D elhi).] as subse quen tly foll ow ed in Tw ylight I nfrastru ct ure [Tw yligh t I nfr astruct ure Pvt. L td. v. ITO, ( 2024) 463 ITR 702 (D elhi ); 202 4 S CC O nLin e Del 33 0.]. C onsequently, the va lidit y of sanction for is s uing the orders under section 148 A(d) a nd the notices und er sec ti on 148 should be test ed wit h reference t o am end ed s ection 151. If so t ested, it is evi dent that s anc tion was n ot gra nted by an aut hority spec ified under c lause (ii) of s ec tio n 151. Hence, the orde rs unde r s ection 1 48A(d) and th e noti ces und er section 148 a r e qua shed. As a c oro llary , the draft assessment ord ers und er s ec ti on 144B /1 44C cannot surviv e an d are also qua shed.
16. Thes e wr it petitions a re all ow ed on t he above term s. Th ere will b e n o o rder as t o cost s. C onsequen tly , th e connec ted mis c ella neo us petit ions a re als o cl osed."
17. We ma y al so note the view of the Oris sa High Court in A mb ika Iron and Steel Pvt . L td. v. P rinc ipa l C om missioner of I ncome Tax: 2 0 22 S CC OnLine O ri 4162 which i s also simila r to the v i ew as expr ess ed by t his court . Th e relevant ext rac t of the said de ci si on i s rep rod uced below:
"2. I n eac h of these cases, th e challeng es t o a notice is s ued by the Income- tax D epartmen t (hereinafter "D epa rtment ") und er sect ion 1 48 of t he Income-tax A ct, 196 1, (IT A ct) a s it st ood pr ior to th e a mendment by th e Finance Ac t of 202 1 with effect f ro m April 1, 2021 . In ot her words , i n ea ch of th ese cas es, t he n otice under s ection 14 8 o f the I nco me-tax A c t h as been issued p rior to April 1, 2021. In man y of them, in fact , th e dat e of th e notice is Ma rch 31, 2021.
3. In eac h of thes e cases, the rel evan t assessment yea r (AY) in rel ati on to which such not ic e ha s bee n issued is more tha n four years pri or to the da te of th e reop ening, i.e., it is bey ond four yea rs f rom the exp iry of t h e as sess ment year in ques tion and is clea rly t her ef o re, ti me ba rred in terms of the first pro viso t o section 147 of the I nc ome-ta x Act .
4. The st and of the R evenue th at in view of t h e notific atio ns iss ued by the Central Governm ent in terms of the pro vis ions of t he Taxati on and Other L aws 11 ITA No. 8758/Del/2025 Inderjyot Singh (Rela xa tion and A mendm ent of C erta in Provisi ons) A ct, 202 0, the s aid time limits stood ext end ed is clea rly unt ena ble as t hos e not ifications w ere iss ued to dea l wit h th e sit uat ion arisin g from the a men dment to the Incom e-
ta x A c t by t he F inanc e Act, 2021 wi th effect f rom Ap ril 1, 2021 wherea s i n t hes e ca ses the n otices w ere issue d pr ior to A pri l 1 , 20 21.
5. This c ourt h ad a n occasion in sim il ar circumstances to qua sh an identic al notice un de r sec t ion 148 of t h e Inco me-t ax Ac t by its ord er da ted Nov ember 2 0, 2019 in Writ P etiti on (C) N o. 7 618 of 2009 and which ord er stoo d c onfirm ed by thi s court by t he dismissal of th e Depa rtm ent's revi e w petitio n, i. e., RV WPET No. 188 of 202 0 by the o rder da ted December 3, 2021 which re ads as under:
"1. Alt hou gh th e point m ade by t he Revenue in this rev iew petit i on is that this court in its order dated Nov em ber 20, 20 19 erred in draw ing a d istinction bet ween an Additional C om missioner a nd C ommissioner in term s of their a uth ority, th e po int involved wa s tha t for the purpos e o f s ection 1 51(1) o f t he Income -ta x Act , 1961 s inc e the reopening of the assessment was bey ond four yea rs, it ha d to have the prior approva l of the C om missi oner of Incom e-t ax, a nd the re was no suc h a pproval in the p res ent ca se.
2. C onse quen tly, no ground is ma de ou t for review ing the or der da ted N ovember 20, 2019 in Writ P etition (C ) No. 7618 of 2009.
3. The r evi ew pet itio n is dismis sed."
6. Indeed in the n otice issued unde r section 148 of th e Inco me-t ax Ac t on Ma rch 31, 2021 wh ich has been c hallenged in Writ Pet ition (C ) No. 418 26 of 20 21 it has been sta ted tha t the notices had been issued after ob taining "neces sa ry s atisfa ct ion of t he Join t C om missi oner of I n come-tax Range-I, C ut tack " w hereas th e Offi ce r a ut hori zed to r eco rd th e necessar y s atisfac t ion had t o be t he C hief Commi ssion er of Inco me-t ax/C omm issioner of Income-t ax.
7. F or all the af oresa id r eason s, in each of t he abov e c ases, t he im pugned not ice unde r sect ion 148 of t he Inco me-t ax A c t is hereb y quas hed. T he writ petiti ons ar e all owed, but in th e ci rcum stances, w ith no ord er as t o c osts ."
18. I n view o f t he above, the o rder dat ed 29.07.2 022 pa ssed und er S ectio n 1 48A(d) of t he A c t is not su staina ble. C onseq uent ly, the s ubsequent p roceedings, including th e as s es s ment ord er dat ed 23.05.2023, can not be susta ined.
12 ITA No. 8758/Del/2025Inderjyot Singh A ccordin gly, t he im pugned ord er pas sed und er S ecti on 148 A(d ) of th e Ac t, th e no tic e i ssued under S ection 1 48 of th e A c t as well as the assessm ent order da ted 23.05 .2 0 23 an d the demand rais ed pursuant t her et o, a re hereby set as ide."
4. I adopt the above detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to quas h the impugned reopening itself in very terms.
5. All o ther pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic.
6. This assessee's appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court o n 22/01/2026.
Sd/-
(Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 22/01/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR