ITAT Raipur Declares Reassessment Invalid Due to Defective Sanction u/s 151(ii): PCIT Lacks Jurisdiction Beyond Three Years

In a significant ruling concerning the strict adherence to jurisdictional prerequisites under the Income Tax Act 1961, the Raipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against an assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The Tribunal held that for notices issued beyond the three-year limitation period, the sanction must explicitly come from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner as mandated by Section 151(ii). Consequently, approvals granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) in such scenarios are legally unsustainable, rendering the entire assessment void ab initio.

The judgment was delivered in the case of Kamlesh Kukreja (Prop. Anmol Industries) vs. ITO [ITA No.119/RPR/2025], vide order dated 01-01-2026.

Procedural Hurdles: Condonation of Delay

Before addressing the core legal dispute regarding jurisdiction, the Tribunal had to adjudicate on a preliminary procedural lapse. The appeal filed by the assessee was delayed by 156 days.

The Assessee’s Plea

The legal counsel for the assessee contended that the delay was neither willful nor a tactic to delay justice. The primary reason cited was a technical oversight regarding the contact details on the income tax e-filing portal. Specifically, the assessee’s profile lacked an updated email ID, leading to a communication gap where the assessee remained unaware of the dismissal order passed by the lower authority. It was only upon logging into the portal in February 2025 that the assessee discovered the dismissal, prompting immediate steps to file the appeal.

Judicial Interpretation of "Sufficient Cause"

The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the condonation request. However, the Tribunal looked towards established jurisprudence regarding the limitation period. The ITAT referenced the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, which established the principle that when technical considerations are pitted against substantial justice, the latter must prevail. The apex court has long held that a litigant does not stand to gain by filing a late appeal and that refusing to condone a non-deliberate delay could result in a meritorious case being discarded at the threshold.