High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur v. Ashish Agarwal
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 74/2025 ·
Invalidity of reassessment notice dated 26.07.2022 under Section 148 issued beyond three years with sanction of PCIT instead of PCCIT/CCIT under Section 151(ii) following Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC).
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
The Revenue appealed under Section 260A against the ITAT Jaipur Bench order dated 19.03.2025 in ITA No. 1384/JPR/2024, which had quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated via notice dated 26.07.2022 under Section 148 on the ground that approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 151(i) rather than the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) under Section 151(ii).
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
The Division Bench reproduced the ITAT's analysis applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) (paras 73 to 78). Under the substituted regime effective 01.04.2021, TOLA does not extend the time limit for grant of sanction by the specified authority under Section 151(i). Because more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year when the order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 were issued on 26.07.2022, prior approval had to be obtained from the PCCIT/CCIT under Section 151(ii), rendering sanction by the PCIT without jurisdiction.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
Holding that the ITAT committed no illegality or perversity and that no substantial question of law arose, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
4. OUTCOME
Assessee - Revenue appeal dismissed; ITAT order quashing the Section 148 notice for invalid Section 151 sanction affirmed.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
For all post-Ashish Agarwal reassessment notices issued in July 2022 after expiry of three years from the end of the assessment year (such as AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18), sanction by PCIT instead of PCCIT/CCIT violates Section 151(ii) as settled in Rajeev Bansal.
Source and verification
2-page official High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan judgment PDF (20260324_RJHC020461772025.pdf, 57,101 bytes).
Original PDF: 2 pages · SHA-256: 1abd9462f8525b48cec533fd4b12c07d88ca888c080b4342b4ec9aaea8975855
Supplied source-reviewed note retained; original bytes and identity validation checked in this release. Substantive re-review is not claimed for this record.
Applies Sections 148, 148A(d), and 151(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with TOLA, 2020. Income-tax Act, 2025 equivalence is not verified.
Full 2-page primary judgment PDF text read and verified page-by-page. Follows Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) and Bombay High Court ruling in Keenara Industries Pvt. Ltd.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.