Arvindbhai Khatri Sons Designs Private Limited v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Arvindbhai Khatri Sons Designs Private Limited, filed a return of income disclosing a total income of Rs 75,15,530/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) received information indicating substantial cash deposits of Rs 4,09,89,250/- in the assessee's bank account, which were considered to have escaped assessment under sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Consequently, an order under section 148A(d) was passed on 29.07.2022, and the assessment was reopened under section 148 on the same date after obtaining approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai. The assessee challenged the reopening and reassessment, arguing that the approval for issuing the notice under section 148 was obtained from the incorrect authority, i.e., the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the reopening of the assessment and the consequential reassessment order are valid given that the approval for issuing the notice under section 148 was obtained from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Ashish Jain vs. ITO

  Delhi Bench ‘B’ benchAY 2016-17Allowed

• M/s Sunglow Vinimay Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer

  D Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2014-15, 2015-16Allowed

• Ajay Nagpal Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-48(1), New Delhi-110002

• Rohit Goel Vs DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi-110055

• Sheetal Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle5 (3) (1), Mumbai

• Reshma Harbakhsh Singh through Legal Heir Vikaramaditya Singh VS DCIT

  Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi benchAY 2018-19Allowed