ITAT Hyderabad Invalidates Section 148 Reassessment for AY 2018-19 Due to Improper Sanction

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in Hanumantha Rao Annabattina Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad), set aside a reassessment initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void because the Assessing Officer obtained prior approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) instead of the competent higher authority mandated under Section 151(ii) when a notice under Section 148 is issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Alongside this core jurisdictional issue, the Tribunal also condoned a delay of 82 days in filing the appeal, after being satisfied that exceptional business and health-related hardships constituted “sufficient cause” for the assessee’s late filing.

Background of the Appeal

The assessee, Hanumantha Rao Annabattina, challenged an order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the CIT(A) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi relating to AY 2018‑19. The appeal was directed against the reassessment framed under the new reassessment regime, where the Assessing Officer had first passed an order under Section 148A(d) and, based on that, issued a notice under Section 148.

Two distinct aspects arose before the Tribunal:

  1. Whether the delay of 82 days in filing the appeal could be condoned; and
  2. Whether the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to lack of sanction from the correct specified authority as per Section 151(ii).

Delay of 82 Days in Filing the Appeal

Explanation for Delay

The assessee filed a condonation petition supported by a sworn affidavit. The explanation placed on record was that the assessee was engaged in poultry farming and, in the relevant period, his poultry unit suffered a severe outbreak of Bird Flu (Avian Influenza). This outbreak led to the death of around 5,000 birds, which caused deep financial strain and disrupted the assessee’s entire business operations and livelihood.

The affidavit detailed that:

  • The assessee had to spend all his time and attention managing the Bird Flu crisis, including:
    • Disposal of dead birds, and
    • Implementing urgent measures to control further spread of the disease.
  • During this period, the assessee himself fell seriously ill, suffering from:
    • High fever,
    • Severe body pain,
    • Persistent cough, and
    • Extreme fatigue, necessitating medical attention and rest.
  • Because of the combined financial, business and health crisis, the assessee could not promptly attend to his income-tax affairs or coordinate with his tax advisor for filing the appeal within the statutory time limit.
  • Once the situation stabilised, he contacted his consultant, who in turn coordinated with the professional handling Tribunal matters in Hyderabad, and the appeal was then filed on 20.02.2026, resulting in an 82-day delay.

Tribunal’s View on Condonation

The Departmental Representative objected to condonation. However, after going through the affidavit and the reasons cited in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the assessee’s sworn statement, the Tribunal concluded that:

  • The circumstances described were exceptional,
  • The assessee’s inability to file the appeal in time stemmed from genuine hardship, and
  • The delay was neither deliberate nor caused by negligence.

Invoking the principle of “sufficient cause”, the Tribunal condoned the 82‑day delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication on merits.

Admission of Additional Jurisdictional Grounds

Nature of Additional Grounds

The assessee moved a petition seeking permission to raise additional grounds, specifically Ground Nos. 2 and 3, which assailed the very validity of the notice under Section 148. The thrust of these additional grounds was that the Assessing Officer had not obtained approval from the appropriate “specified authority” under Section 151(ii) of the Act, rendering both the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the subsequent notice under Section 148 illegal.

The Tribunal observed that:

  • The challenge related to jurisdiction, going to the foundation of the reassessment proceedings.
  • No fresh factual investigation or new evidence was required; the issue could be decided entirely on the existing assessment and sanction records.

Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **National Thermal Power Co. Ltd.