Facts of the Case

Multiple taxpayers, including Twylight Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Abhinav Jindal, Mangla Gupta, Rajesh Gupta HUF and others, filed writ petitions challenging reassessment notices issued by the Income-Tax Department for various assessment years. The notices were issued under Sections 148 and 148A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, after the usual three-year limitation period from the end of the relevant assessment year had expired.

Petitioners contended that the reassessment notices were invalid because they were issued without the mandatory prior approval of the specified authority as required under Section 151(ii) of the Income-Tax Act. As such, the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The issue was whether the absence of specified authority approval vitiates the reassessment notices and proceedings.

 Issues Involved


  1. Whether reassessment notices under Section 148 and action under Section 148A are valid without prior approval of the authority specified under Section 151(ii) of the Income-Tax Act?
  2. Whether the amendments introduced by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA) affect the mandatory requirement of specified authority approval under Section 151(ii)?
  3. Whether reassessment proceedings commenced without such mandatory approval could be sustained in law?

 Petitioner’s Arguments


  • Reassessment notices and consequent proceedings were unlawful because the Income-Tax Act requires mandatory prior approval of the specified authority under Section 151(ii) where the period for reassessment has expired beyond three years.
  • The absence of such approval means the reassessment notices are void ab initio and of no legal effect.
  • The amendments brought by TOLA extend time limits but do not dispense with the mandatory requirement of specified authority approval.

 Respondent’s Arguments


  • The Revenue contended that the reassessment actions were justified under the extended timelines provided by TOLA and relevant statutory provisions.
  • It was argued that necessary approvals were obtained and that the interpretation of statutory provisions by the department was in line with revenue procedures.
  • The Revenue also contended that TOLA had modified certain timelines and procedural requirements, which could have implications on how the approval hierarchy operates.

 Court Order / Findings


  • Approval under Section 151(ii) is mandatory before issuing a notice under Section 148 or carrying forward proceedings under Section 148A when the limitation period has expired.
  • The authority granting approval must be the one specifically designated under Section 151(ii); failure to obtain such approval renders the reassessment proceedings invalid.
  • Amendments introduced by TOLA do not alter the statutory requirement of obtaining specified authority approval under Section 151(ii). TOLA may extend time limits but cannot override the mandatory statutory mandate for approval.
  • As a consequence, the reassessment notices and proceedings challenged in these petitions were quashed for lack of valid approval as required under Section 151(ii).
  • The Revenue was granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, including obtaining proper authority approval before issuance of fresh notices.

Important Clarification

The Court clarified that the requirement of approval under Section 151(ii) is substantive and mandatory, not merely procedural. Non-compliance with this statutory mandate results in the reassessment proceedings being without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed, even if time limits have been extended under other statutory provisions.    

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/RAS05012024CW165242022_114311.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.