Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Intouch Mobicare Private ... vs Dcit, Circle- 10(1), Delhi on 10 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'F', NEW DELHI
Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member
&
Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member
ITA No. 8254/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2018-19
Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT,
K-1/39, Chittranjan Park, Alaknanda, Circle-10(1),
South Delhi, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AACCI5188G
Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &
Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv.
Revenue by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 10.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 10.03.2026
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises agains t the C IT(A)/NFAC, Delhi's DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082811902(1) dated 20.11.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").
2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
3. It emerges at the outset that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of section 148 proce edings herein between the parties w herein the learned Assessing Officer had issue d his correspo nding notice dated 07 .04.2022 for 2 ITA No. 8254/Del/2025 Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd.
assessment year 2018-19 in question i.e . beyond the prescribed perio d of three years from the end of the relevant asses sment year after getting approval of the PCIT-4, New Delhi only. This being the clinching factual position, the assessee has quoted hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision that in suc h an instance, the necessary sanction could not be obtained fro m 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 department as follows:
"7. The lear ned A O was not per suaded with the explana tion provided by the petitioner and passed a n or der dated 29.07.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Ac t, holding that it wa s a fit c as e for reopening the a ssessment pr oc eedi ngs under Section 147/148 of the Act. The said order w as issued with the approval of the Commissioner of Inc ome Tax (Exemption) [CIT(E )] on a n assumption that the CIT(E) w as a spec ified author ity under the provis ions of Secti on 151 of the Act.
8. The AO iss ued a notice dated 29. 07.2022 under Sec tion 148 of the Act acc ompanied with the or der dated 29.07.2022 pass ed under Section 148A(d) of the Ac t. It is the petitioner' s ca se that the s aid notic e is bar red by limita tion.
9. It is ma terial to note that the original notice un der Section 148 of the Act [deemed to be a s how c aus e notice under Section 148A(b) of the Ac t in ter ms of the decision in the ca se of Union of India & Or s. v. Ashish Aga rwal (s upra)] wa s issued on 28. 06.2021, that is, two da ys prior to the expiry of the limita tion period as extended by vir tue of the Taxa tion and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certa in Provisi ons) Act, 2020 [TOLA]. Thus, the AO had two days to is sue the notice under Section 148 of the Act after receiving the reply dated 08.06.2022 filed by the pet itioner. Since the s aid peri od was l ess than seven days , the AO had, by virtue of the four th proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, seven da ys to pas s an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act (which was nec ess ar ily required to ac company a notice 3 ITA No. 8254/Del/2025 Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd.
under Section 148 of the Act). The said period expired on 16.06.2022. Therefor e, the order passed under Sec tion 148A(d) of the Act was beyond the per iod of limita tion.
10. The impugned notice is also liable to be set aside on the ground tha t it was issued without the approval of the authority s pecified under Section 151 of the Act. Sinc e the impugned notice wa s issued bey ond the peri od of t hr ee years from the end of the relevant a ssess ment year, thus, in ter ms of Sec tion 151(ii) of the Act, the sa me w as required to be a pproved by the Princ ip al Chief Commis sio ner or Princ ipal Direct or General or where there is no suc h authority , by Chief Commissioner or Direc tor General. The deter mination of the specified author ity for grant of approval under Section 151 of the Ac t depends on whether the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been is s ued after the expir y of three years fr om the end of the r el eva nt as sessment y ear or within the sa id per iod.
11. Sec tion 151 of the Act (a s a mended by the Financ e Act, 2021) as in for ce on the da te of iss ua nce of notice r ead as under:
"151. Sanction for issue of notice.- Spec ifi ed author ity for the purposes of sec tion 148 and sectio n 148A s hall be,-
(i) Pr inc ipal Commissioner or Principa l Direc tor or Commis sioner or Director , if thr ee y ea rs or les s than three years have elapsed from t he end o f the relev ant a ss essment year;
(ii) Pr inc ipal Chief Co mmissioner or Principal Director Genera l or where there is no Principa l Chief Commis sioner or Principal Director Gener al, Chief Commis sioner or Director Gen eral, if mor e than three y ea rs have ela psed fr om th e end of the relev ant a ss essment year."
12. The question w hether the sa nction in respec t of notic es that were iss ued d ur ing the period of limitation as extended by TOLA required t he prior sa nction in terms of Sec tion 151 of the Ac t, a s in f or ce a fter 31.03.20 21 or as in for ce p rior to the s aid date, ha s fell for consider ation of this court in sever al cas es inc lu ding Twylight Infr astr ucture Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer War d 25 3 Delhi & Ors.: Neutr al Citation No.2024:DHC:259- DB and Abhinav Jindal HUF v. Inc ome Tax Officer War d 54(1) Delhi & Ors.: Neutral Citation No.:
2024:DHC:7238-DB . This court had held that TOLA would hav e no relev anc e for deter mining the spec ified autho rity whos e approv al wa s mandatory under Section 151 of the Ac t 4 ITA No. 8254/Del/2025 Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd.
for is sua nce of a notice under Secti on 148 of the Ac t. We consider it appos ite to r efer t o the f ollowing extra ct fr om the decision o f this court in Abhinav Jindal HUF v. Inc ome Tax Officer Wa rd 54(1) Delhi & Ors. (supr a). The same is set out below:
"17. As was noticed in the intr oductor y parts of this dec ision, the r es pondents had, contrar y to the abov e, ar gued tha t once a notice for r eas sessment comes to be is sued after the expiry of four years by vir tue of the extended per iod of time made av ailable by TOLA, a ll the impugned notic es would fall within th e ken of sub-sectio n (2) of the pr e-amendment Section 151 and consequently the s anc tion a nd appr ova l a ccor ded by the JCIT would be in ac cordance with la w.
*** *** ***
38. It w ould therefore be wholly inc orr ec t to read TOLA as intending to amend the dis tribution of power or the ca tegor ization env is aged and prescr ibed by Sec tion 151.
The additional t ime that the sa id s tatute provided to a n authority c annot possibly be c onstr ued as altering or modifying the hie ra rchy or the str uc ture set up by Section 151 of the Ac t. The issue of approval w ould still be liable to be ans wer ed bas ed on w hether the reasses sment was commenc ed after o r within a per iod of four yea rs fr om the end of the rel eva nt AY or as per the amended regime dependent upon whether ac tion was being pr opos ed wi thin thr ee years of the end of the relev ant AY or ther eafter. The bifurc ation of those powers would continue unaltered and una ffec ted by TOLA.
39. The fa lla cy of the submission a ddr ess ed by th e respondents becomes even more ev ident when we weigh in cons ider ation the fac t that even if the r eas sess ment ac tion were initiated, as per the extended TOL A timelines, and thus a fter the period of four y ear s, Section 151 inc or p orated adequate meas ur es to deal wit h suc h a contingenc y and in unambiguous terms identified the authority which w as to be moved for the purpos es of sa nction a nd appr ova l. Secti on 15 1 distributed the powers of a pprova l a mongst a set of spec ified authorities based upon the lapse of time betwe en the end of the relev ant AY and the date when reas ses sment was proposed. Thus eve n if the r eassessment was pr opos ed to be initiated with the aid of TOLA aft er the exp iry of four years fr om the e nd of the r elevan t AY, the a uthorit y sta tutorily empower ed to confer approval would be the 5 ITA No. 8254/Del/2025 Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd.
Pr inc ipal Chief Commiss ioner /C hief Commis sion er /Principa l Commis sioner /Commissioner . I t would only b e in a c as e where t he r eassess ment was propos ed to b e initia ted befor e the expiry of four y ear s fr om the end of the r eleva nt AY that approv al could hav e been ac corded by the JCIT. Simila r would be the position which woul d emerge if the ac tions wer e tes ted on the bas is of the amended Section 151 and which divides the power of sa nction a mongst tw o sets of a uthorities bas ed on whether rea ss es sment is c ommenced within three years or ther eafter ."
13. In Twy light Infr astr ucture Pvt. Ltd. v. Inc ome Tax Officer Wa rd 25 3 Delhi & Ors.(supra ), a Coordina te B enc h of this c ourt examined the va lidity of initiation of reas ses sment proceedings, in cases w here the inc ome alleged t o ha ve e sc aped a ssessment wa s ?50,00,000/- or less . In the a for e said context, this court a ls o c onsidered the ques tion as to the specified a uthority, whos e prior approval wa s requir ed and held as under :
"10. As indic ated a bove, the s peci fied author ity c hanges depending on the time limit prescr ibed in s ection 151 of the Act. It is on this a ccount that there is a linka ge betw een ruling r endered i n Ganesh Dass Khanna [Ga nesh Da ss Kha nna v. ITO, (2024) 460 ITR 546 (Delhi); 2023 SCC OnLine D el 7286; 2023 : DHC : 818 7-DB.] and the ins ta nt matters .
11. It ma y als o be noted that in Ga nes h Das s Khanna [Ga nesh Das s Khanna v . ITO, (2024) 460 I TR 546 (Delhi); 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7286; 2023 : DHC : 8187-DB.] , we had r ec orded the stand of the Re venue that the is sue concerning limitation a nd the specifi ed authority are "inter twined". For convenience, the relevant part of the judgment is extra cted herea fter (page 567 of 460 ITR):
"24. On behalf o f the Revenue, t he following broad submissions were made:......
(viii) B oth under the una mended 1961 Act and amended 1961 Ac t, the is su e concerning limita tion is inextr ic ably intertwined with two a spects:
(a) First, the rank of the author ity granting approval/sanc tion for tr iggering reass es sment proceedings .
(b) Second, the qua ntum of income which has es caped as sess ment."
(Emphasis is ours ) 6 ITA No. 8254/Del/2025 Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd.
12. Clearly, the Revenue adva nced the argument of interlinkage between limita tion and the a sc erta inment of the spec ified a uthority due to the pl ain language of the amended section 151 of the Act. Section 151, when read alongside the fir st proviso to s ectio n 148, br ings the as pect of inextrica ble link age to the f ore.
12.1. Cla uses (i) a nd (ii) o f secti on 1 51 of the amended Ac t (whic h has been extr acted her eina bove) c lear ly specify the a uthor ity whose appr ov al ca n trigger the reasses sment proceedings. Thus, if three (3) y ear s or less ha ve elapse d from the end of the relevan t as sessment yea r, the specified author ity who would gr ant approval for initia tion of rea ssessment proc eedings will be the Pr incipal Commissioner or Pr incipa l Director or Commissioner or Dir ector. Howev er , if mor e than three (3) yea rs fr om the end of the releva nt ass ess ment y ear hav e elapsed , the speci fied author ity for ac cor din g approval for the re asses sment shall be the Principal Chi ef Commissioner or Pr inc ipal Director Genera l or, w h ere ther e is no Princ ipa l Chief Commis s ioner or Pr inc ipa l Director G ener al, Chief Commiss ioner or Direc tor Genera l.
12.2. Tha t the approval is mandatory is pla inly evid ent on perus al of the f ir st pr ov iso a ppended to s ection 148 of the Act. The sa id p r oviso, a t the r isk of repetit ion, r eads as follows:
"Provided that no notice under this s ection shall be is sued unles s there is information with the Ass ess ing Officer which s uggests tha t the income c hargea ble to tax has esca ped as sessment in the cas e of the as sess ee for the r elevant a ss es sment y ear and the As ses sing Officer has obtained prior a pprova l of the specified authority to is sue suc h notice."
12.3. In these ca ses, there is no dispute that although three (3) y ea rs had elapsed from the end of the relevant as sessment yea r, the approv al was s ought from the authorities s pecified in cla use (i), as against clause (ii ) of s ecti on 151.
12.4. Before us, the counsel for the Revenue continue to hold this pos ition. The only liber ty that they seek is that if, based on the judgment in Ganes h Das s Kha nna [Ga nesh Da ss Kh anna v. ITO, (2 024) 460 ITR 54 6 (Delhi); 2023 SC C OnLine Del 7286; 2023 : DHC : 8187- DB.], the impugned or ders a nd notices a re s et as ide, 7 ITA No. 8254/Del/2025 Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd.
liberty be giv en to the Revenue to c ommenc e t he reasses sment proc eedings a fresh.
13. Therefor e, h aving r egar d to the a fores aid, the impugned notic es a nd order s in each of the above- ca ptioned writ petitions are quashed on the gr ound that ther e is no approval of the sp ec ified author ity, as indic ated in s ec tio n 151(ii) of the A ct. The dir ec tion is is sued with the c aveat that the Rev enue will have l iberty to tak e s teps, if de emed necessa ry, albeit as per law."
14. In J M Fina ncia l & Inv estments Cons ultanc y Serv ic es Pr iv ate Limited v . ACIT, Cir cl e 3(2) (1) & Ors ., W.P. N o. 1050/2020, decide d on 04.04.2022, t he Bombay High C our t had made obs er vations to the eff ect that even if the time to issue notice ma y ha ve been extend ed by TOLA, the s ame would not amend the pr ovisions of S ection 151 of the Act. The r ele vant extr ac t of the said decis ion is s et out below :
"5. Resp ondents ha ve reli ed upon a letter dated 18th Ma rc h 2021 iss ued by one Inc ome T ax Offic er , who has given a n opinion to the Additional Commiss ioner of Inc ome Tax tha t in view of the Taxati on and other Laws (Relaxati on of Cer t ain Provisions) Act, 2020 (Relaxa tion Ac t), limita tion, in ter alia, under provisi ons of Sec tio n 151(1) and Sec tion 151(2), whic h were original ly expiring on 31s t Mar ch 2020 s tand extended to 31s t Ma rc h 2021. Ac cording to the Income Tax Officer, in view of the a bove, Ass essment Year 2015-2016 whic h falls under the ca tegor y within four year s as on 31st Mar ch 2020, the s ta tutor y approv al for issua nc e of notic e under Section 148 of the Ac t for the Asses sment Yea r 2015- 2016 may be give n by the Ra nge H ea d as per the s ai d provis ions. Mr. Sha rma cla rifies that the Inc ome Ta x Officer is on ly c onveying the v iew of the Pr inc ip al Commissioner of In come Tax becaus e this letter has been is sued on the lett er head of Pr incipal Commis sioner of Inc ome Ta x.
6. Even for a moment we agree with the view express ed by the Pr inc ipal Commissioner o f I ncome Tax, still i t applies to only ca ses wher e the limitation was expir in g on 31st Ma rc h 2020. In the case at hand, the as sess ment year is 2015-2016 and, therefor e, the six yea rs limita tio n will expir e only on 31st Mar ch 2022. Certainly, therefor e, the Rela xa tion Act provisions ma y not be applica ble. I n any event, the time to issue n otic e may ha ve be en extended but that would not amount to amending the provis ions of Secti on 151 of the Act.8 ITA No. 8254/Del/2025
Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd.
7. In our v iew, s ince four years ha d e xpired fr om the en d of the re levant a ssessment year , a s pr ovided under Section 151(1) of the Act, it is only the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chie f C ommissioner or Pr incipa l Commissioner or C ommissioner who could hav e ac corded the a pprova l and not the Additional Commis sioner of Inc ome Ta x. On t his ground alone, we w il l have to s e t as ide the notic e dated 31s t Mar ch 2021 iss ued under Section 148 of t he Ac t, which is impugned in this petition. In v iew thereof, the consequent or ders and notices will a ls o have to go. "
[emphas is added]
15. In a latter decision in Siemens Fina ncia l Servic es Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Ta x & Ors .:2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2822, the Bomba y High Cour t r eiterated the said view in th e follow ing wor ds:
"24. As per s ection 151 of the Ac t, the "s pecified authority " who ha s to gr ant his sanction for the purpos es of section 148 and section 148A is the Princ ipa l Chief Commissioner or Pr incipal Dir ec tor General or where ther e is no Princ ipa l Chief Commis s ioner or Pr inc ipa l Director G ener al, the Chief C ommissioner or Direc tor Genera l if more than three year s ha ve elaps ed fr om the end of the re lev ant ass ess ment year. The pr esen t petition r ela tes to the a ssessment year 2016-17, and as the impugned order and impugned notic e are iss ued beyond the period of three years which elaps ed on Mar ch 31, 2020 the appr oval as contemplated in s ec tion 151( ii) of the Act would ha ve to be obtained w hich ha s not been done by the As sessing Offic er . Th e impugned notic e mentions that the prior approval has been taken of th e "Principa l C ommis sioner of Income-tax-8" ("PCIT-8 ") whic h is ba d in law as the appr ov al s hould have been obta ined in terms of section 151(ii) a nd not section 151(i) of the Act and the Principal Commiss ioner of Inc ome- ta x-8 ca n not be the spec if ied authority a s per section 151 of the Act. Fur ther, even in the affida vit-in- reply, the Depar tment has accepted that the approval obta ined is of the "Principa l Commiss i oner of I nc ome-ta x- 8" and, hence, suc h an a ppr oval would be bad in law.
25. The Ta xati on a nd Other Laws (Rela xa tion and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, enac ted o n September 29, 20 20 and came into forc e on Ma rch 31, 2020 ([2020] 428 ITR (St.) 29 ). It, inter alia, prov ided for a r elaxa tion of cer tain provisions of the Inc ome-ta x Ac t, 1961. Wher e any time lim it for completi on or 9 ITA No. 8254/Del/2025 Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd.
compliance of a n action such as c ompletion of an y proceedings or pa s sing of a ny or der or is sua nce of a ny notice fell b etween the period Ma rc h 20, 2020 to Decem ber 31, 2020, the time limit for c ompletion of suc h ac tion stood exte nded to Mar ch 31, 2021. Thus, the Taxa tion and Othe r Laws (Relaxa t ion and Amendment of Certa in Provisi ons) Act only se eks to extend the peri od of limita tion and does not affect the scop e of s ection 151.
26. The Assess ing Offic er cannot rely on the provis ions of the Taxa tion and Other Laws (Rela xa tion a nd Amendment of Certain Provis i ons) Act and the notific ati ons iss u ed ther eunder a s section 151 has been amended by the Fina nce Act, 2021 and the provisio ns of the amended section would ha ve to be compli ed wi th by the As sess in g Officer, with effe ct fr om April 1, 2021. Hence, the As sess ing Officer c annot seek to ta ke the s helter of the Taxa tion and Othe r Laws (Relaxa t ion and Amendment of Certa in Provisi ons) Act as a subordinate legis latio n ca nnot override any statute enacted by Par liament. Further, the notification extending th e dates fr om Marc h 31, 2021 till Jun e 30, 2021 cannot apply once the Fina nce Act, 2021 is in existence. The sanction of th e specified a uthority ha s to be obtained in acc or da nce with the law existing when the sanction is obta ined a nd, ther efore, the san c tion is required to be obtained by apply ing the amended s ection 151(ii) of the Act and sinc e the sa nction has been obta ined in ter ms of sec tion 151(i) of the Act, the impugned order a nd impugned notice a re bad in la w a nd should be qua shed a nd set as ide. "
16. In Ramac handra n Shivan v . Income Tax Offic er, W.P. No. 8570/2023 a nd other c onnected matter s, decided on 04.03.2024, the Madra s High Court also refer red to the dec isions of the B ombay High Court as well as the dec is ion of this c ourt in Twylight Infr as tructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Inc ome Tax Officer War d 25 3 Delhi & Ors . (supra) and expres sed the s imilar view. The relevant extr act of the sa id dec is ion is s et out bel ow:
"13. The orders a nd notices are challenged herein not on the gr ound that the time limit under pr ea mended section 149 does not apply, but on the ground that s anc tion was not granted by the specified a uthority. Therefor e, i t remains to be c onsidered as to whether the application of the provis o to secti on 149 has the effect of inc or porating by r eferenc e to preamended section 151. In or der to substantia te the contention that prea mended section 15 1 gets inc or pora ted by refer ence, learned sta nding couns el relied on sub-sec tion (2) t o the pr ea mended s ec tion 14 9.10 ITA No. 8254/Del/2025
Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd.
It should be notic ed tha t the pr oviso to s ub-section ( 1) of the amended s ection 149 does n ot even inc orporate the whole of preamended section 149. It m erely ma kes the time limit pr esc ribed ther ein a pplic able to the is sua nce of notic es for reassessmen t in respec t of a n y as sessment year beginning befor e Apr il 1, 2021. A fortiori the provi so certainly d oe s not incorpor at e prea mended s ec tion 151 by reference and make it applica ble.
14. The next question to be examined is the impact of the Taxa tion and Other Laws (Rela xa tion a nd Amendment of C er tain Pr ovisions) Act, 2020. Undoubtedly, the Taxa tion and Othe r Laws (Relaxa t ion and Amendment of Certa in Prov is ions ) Act, 2020 extend ed the time limits under spec ified e nactments, including the Inc ome-tax Ac t. As per claus e (a)(ii) of sub-section(1) of s ection 3 ther eof, time limi ts for grant of sa nc tion or approval wer e a lso extended. Since the petitioner does no t cha llenge the sa nction w ith respect to the time limit, claus e (a) of sub-section (1) of sect ion 3 is immater ial. Indeed, the Taxat ion and Other La ws (Relaxation an d Amendment of Certa in Provisions) Ac t, 2020, whic h extends the time li mits for completion of spec if ied tas ks up to Ma rc h 31, 2021, itself b ecome s irr elevant bec ause of the nature of the cha llenge in these wr it petitions.
15. In Siemens F ina ncial Services [Siemens Financial Services Pv t. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (2023) 457 I TR 647 (Bom); 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2822; (2023) 154 taxma nn.com 159 (Bom).] , the Divisi on Benc h of the Bombay High Court c oncluded, in substa ntia lly simila r facts a nd circ umstanc es , that the amended section 151 and not the prea mended sec tion 151 w ould apply. F or reas ons s et out above, I c onc ur w ith the c onclusion in Siemens Financial Services [S iemens Fina ncial Serv ices Pv t. Ltd. v . Dy. CIT , (2023) 457 ITR 64 7 (Bom); 2023 SCC OnLine B om 2822; (2023) 154 ta xmann.com 159 (Bom).] and Ganes h Das Kha nna v. ITO [(2 024) 460 ITR 546 (Delhi); (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 516; (20 23) 156 taxmann.com 417 (Delhi).] a s subsequently foll ow ed in Twy light Infras tructure [Twy light Infra str uc ture Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, (2024) 463 I TR 702 (Delhi); 2024 SCC OnLine Del 330.] . Consequently, the v alidity of sanction for issuing the orders under section 148A(d) a nd the notices under s ection 148 s hould be tes ted with r ef erenc e to amended s ec tion 151. If so tes ted, it is e viden t that sanction was not gra nted by an authority spec ified under clause (ii) of s ec tion 151.
Henc e, the or ders under section 148A(d) and the notic es under section 148 a re quashed. As a corolla ry, the dr aft 11 ITA No. 8254/Del/2025 Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd.
as sessment orders under section 144B/144C cannot sur viv e a nd ar e a lso qua shed.
16. Thes e wr it pet itio ns are allow ed on the a bove ter ms. Ther e will be no or der as to costs . Consequently , the connected miscellane ous petitions a re also cl os ed."
17. We may a ls o n ote the vi ew o f the Oris sa High C ourt in Ambika Ir on a nd Steel Pv t. Ltd. v. Pr inc ipal Commiss ione r of Income Ta x: 2022 SCC OnLine Ori 4162 which is a ls o si milar to the view a s express ed by this court. The relevant extr ac t of the sa id dec is ion is r eproduced bel ow:
"2. In ea ch of these ca ses, the challenges to a notice is sued by the Incom e- tax Department (her eina fter "Depa rtment") under section 148 of t he Income-ta x Act, 1961, (IT Ac t) a s it stood prior to the a mendment by the Fina nce Ac t of 2021 with effect fro m April 1, 2021. In other words, in e ach of these ca se s, the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act has been iss ued pr ior to Apr il 1, 2021. In ma ny of them, in fac t, the date of the notic e is Ma rch 31, 2021.
3. In eac h of these cases, the releva nt as ses sment year (AY) in rela tion to which such notice has been iss ued is mor e than four y ear s prior to the date of the reop ening, i.e., it is bey ond four yea rs from the expiry of the as sessment y ear in question and is c learly therefor e, time ba rred in terms of the first provis o to section 147 of the Income-tax Ac t.
4. The s tand of the Rev enue th at in v iew of th e notifications iss ued by the Central Gover nment in terms of the pr ovis ions of the Taxat ion and Other Laws (Relaxati on and Amendment of Cert ain Pr ovisi ons ) Ac t, 2020, the sa id time limits stood extended is clear ly untenable a s those notifications wer e iss ued to deal wit h the s ituation a ris ing fr om the amendment to the Income-
tax Act by the Finance Act, 2021 w ith effect fr om Apr il 1, 2021 w herea s in these ca ses the notices w er e iss ued prior to April 1, 20 21.
5. This c our t had an occasion in simila r cir cums tances to quas h an identic al notice under sec tion 148 of th e Inc ome-tax Act by its order dated Nov ember 20, 2019 in Wr it Petition (C) N o. 7618 of 2009 and whic h order sto od confirmed by this cour t by the dismiss al of the Depa rtment' s r eview petition, i. e., RVWPET No. 188 of 2020 by the order dated December 3 , 2021 which rea ds as under:
12 ITA No. 8254/Del/2025Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd.
"1. Although the point made by the Revenue in this review p etition is that this c our t in its order dated November 20, 2019 er red in dra wing a dis tinc tion between a n Additio nal Commis sioner a nd Comm iss ioner in ter ms of their authority , the point involv ed w as that for the purpose o f sec tion 151(1) of the Income-tax Ac t, 1961 since the r eop ening of th e as sess ment wa s beyond four yea rs, it had to have the prior approval of the Commis sioner of Income-tax, and ther e was no suc h approval in the pr esent ca se.
2. Cons equently, n o ground is made out for r eviewing the order dated November 20, 2019 in Writ Petition (C ) No. 7618 of 2009.
3. The revi ew petition is dis missed."
6. Indeed in the n otice is sued under sec tion 148 of the Inc ome-tax Ac t on Mar ch 31, 2021 whic h has been cha llenged in Writ Petition (C) No. 41 826 of 2021 it has been stated tha t the notices had been is sued a fter obta ining "necess ar y satisfa ction of the Joint Commissioner of I ncome-tax Ra nge-I, Cuttac k" whereas the Officer aut hor ized to r ecor d the necess ar y sa tis fa ction had to be the Chief Commiss ioner of Income- tax/Commiss ioner of Income-tax.
7. For a ll the a fo resaid rea sons, in eac h of the abov e ca ses, the impugned notice under section 148 of the Inc ome-tax Ac t is her eby quashed. The writ petitions a re allowed, but in the circumstanc es, w ith no order as to costs ."
18. In vi ew of the above, the or der dated 29.07.2 022 pas sed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is not sustainable. Consequently, the subsequent proceedings, including the as sessment order da ted 23.05.2023, ca nnot be s ustained. Accordingly , the impugned order passed under Sec tion 148A(d) of the Act, the notice iss ued under Section 148 of the Ac t a s well as the assessm ent order dated 23.05.2023 and the dema nd ra is ed pursuant ther eto, are h er eby set as ide."
4. We adopt the above detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to quash the impugned reopening itself in very terms.
13 ITA No. 8254/Del/2025Intouch Mobicare Pvt. Ltd.
5. All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic.
6. This assessee's appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 10/03/202 6.
Sd/- Sd/-
(M. Balaganesh) (Satbeer Singh Godara)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated: 10/03/2026
*Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR