Has any Bench outside Amritsar accepted that a pre-proceeding enquiry without approval infects the reassessment?
The Delhi Bench did. It reproduced the reasoning in Amrik Singh on the second proviso to s.133(6) in full, decided the legal issue as squarely covered by that and the other precedents discussed, and quashed the reassessment as bad in law and illegal, declining to go into the merits.
Decided by the ITAT (H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member) on 2017-02-10, reported as ITA No. 1939/Del/2016, assessment year 2008-09. It bears on section 133(6), section 147, section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
It shows the Amritsar reasoning travelling to another Bench, which is what turns a single order into a line. Read with Pushpa at Agra, it is what makes the approval point worth taking rather than merely worth mentioning.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee had filed no return of income for assessment year 2008-09. On information that he had made cash deposits in a savings bank account with Centurion Bank of Punjab, the case was reopened under s.147; in response to the notice under s.148 a return of Rs 1,06,490 was filed. The assessee dealt in the sale and purchase of motor vehicles on commission. Rs 40,49,500 was added as a cash credit under s.68 and the assessment was completed under s.144/147 at Rs 41,55,990 by order dated 25 March 2014 (para 2). The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal by order dated 11 January 2016 (para 3). Before the Tribunal the assessee took the legal ground that the reopening was bad, relying among other things on the absence of the prior approval required by the second proviso to s.133(6) where no proceeding is pending. The order records no dated enquiry letter of its own.
The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held the legal issue to be exactly similar and identical to the issue in the precedents discussed and squarely covered by them, decided it in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and quashed the reassessment proceedings as bad in law and illegal (para 9). Having so held, it declined to decide the issues on merits (para 10), and the appeal stood allowed (para 11).
The Bench's own reasoning is short and is one of adoption: it set out the earlier orders, including the Amritsar Bench's treatment of the second proviso, and held that the legal issue before it was identical and covered. The reasoning it adopted is that after 1 July 1995 no proceeding need be pending for s.133(6) to be used, but an officer below the rank of Director or Commissioner must first obtain the approval of that authority; that there was nothing on record to suggest any such approval had been obtained; and that a power exercised without compliance with the second proviso is an illegal exercise of power. Alongside that, the Bench found the recorded reasons deficient in that the officer had treated bank deposits as income without applying his mind.
I decide the legal issue in dispute in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue and quash the reassessment proceedings
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppThe Delhi Bench did. It reproduced the reasoning in Amrik Singh on the second proviso to s.133(6) in full, decided the legal issue as squarely covered by that and the other precedents discussed, and quashed the reassessment as bad in law and illegal, declining to go into the merits. This was decided by the ITAT (H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member) and bears on section 133(6), section 147, section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 1939/Del/2016, assessment year 2008-09. It shows the Amritsar reasoning travelling to another Bench, which is what turns a single order into a line. Read with Pushpa at Agra, it is what makes the approval point worth taking rather than merely worth mentioning. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Cite this order alongside Amrik Singh rather than instead of it; the reasoning is Amrik Singh's and this Bench adopted it.
The assessee had filed no return of income for assessment year 2008-09. On information that he had made cash deposits in a savings bank account with Centurion Bank of Punjab, the case was reopened under s.147; in response to the notice under s.148 a return of Rs 1,06,490 was filed. The assessee dealt in the sale and purchase of motor vehicles on commission. Rs 40,49,500 was added as a cash credit under s.68 and the assessment was completed under s.144/147 at Rs 41,55,990 by order dated 25 March 2014 (para 2). The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal by order dated 11 January 2016 (para 3). Before the Tribunal the assessee took the legal ground that the reopening was bad, relying among other things on the absence of the prior approval required by the second proviso to s.133(6) where no proceeding is pending. The order records no dated enquiry letter of its own. The matter was decided on 2017-02-10 by the ITAT (H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held the legal issue to be exactly similar and identical to the issue in the precedents discussed and squarely covered by them, decided it in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and quashed the reassessment proceedings as bad in law and illegal (para 9). Having so held, it declined to decide the issues on merits (para 10), and the appeal stood allowed (para 11).
The Bench's own reasoning is short and is one of adoption: it set out the earlier orders, including the Amritsar Bench's treatment of the second proviso, and held that the legal issue before it was identical and covered. The reasoning it adopted is that after 1 July 1995 no proceeding need be pending for s.133(6) to be used, but an officer below the rank of Director or Commissioner must first obtain the approval of that authority; that there was nothing on record to suggest any such approval had been obtained; and that a power exercised without compliance with the second proviso is an illegal exercise of power. Alongside that, the Bench found the recorded reasons deficient in that the officer had treated bank deposits as income without applying his mind. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "I decide the legal issue in dispute in favor of the Assessee and against the Revenue and quash the reassessment proceedings" The decision followed or applied Amrik Singh v ITO (ITAT Amritsar, ITA No. 630(Asr)/2015, decided 11 May 2016) - reproduced and adopted as covering the legal issue.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2017-02-10 and is reported as ITA No. 1939/Del/2016, assessment year 2008-09. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 133(6), section 147, section 148, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held the legal issue to be exactly similar and identical to the issue in the precedents discussed and squarely covered by them, decided it in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and quashed the reassessment proceedings as bad in law and illegal (para 9). Having so held, it declined to decide the issues on merits (para 10), and the appeal stood allowed (para 11). It arises in Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section 133(6), section 147, section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Take the approval point and the quality of the reasons recorded together, which is how both orders were argued and decided. Where the reassessment rests on bank deposits alone, add the deposits-are-not-income point - it is the ground the Bench put first. Ask for the file: whether an approval exists is a question of record, and these orders turned on there being nothing on the record.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No decision applying, affirming, doubting or overruling this order was located. The reasoning it adopts, from Amrik Singh, was separately applied by the Agra Bench in Pushpa v ITO on 22 March 2019. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
A trap in this document. The passages on the second proviso appear at paragraphs numbered 17 to 19, but those numbers belong to the Amritsar Bench's order in Amrik Singh, which this order reproduces; this Bench's own conclusion, disposal and final order are at paragraphs 9, 10 and 11. Anyone quoting 'para 19' of this order as this Bench's holding on the proviso is quoting Amrik Singh. The document as retrieved also states a total of 15 numbered paragraphs while carrying quoted paragraph numbers running to 19, which is consistent with the higher numbers sitting inside the extract. The operative ground for quashing was the absence of a rational nexus in the recorded reasons; the s.133(6) point was part of the covered legal issue but is not stated as the sole ground. A check against the document found that the facts previously recorded here had themselves been taken from the block quotation - the enquiry letter dated 13 March 2008 is a fact of Amrik Singh (assessment year 2006-07) and not of this case - and the facts have been rewritten from this Bench's own paras 2 and 3. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held the legal issue to be exactly similar and identical to the issue in the precedents discussed and squarely covered by them, decided it in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and quashed the reassessment proceedings as bad in law and illegal (para 9). Having so held, it declined to decide the issues on merits (para 10), and the appeal stood allowed (para 11).
TaxSphere, “Harmeet Singh v ITO”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/harmeet-singh-v-ito-133-6-approval-followed-amrik-singh/ (validity last checked 2026-09-17)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I hold a valid TRC. Can the AO go behind it and reopen my assessment for lack of substance?
The s.148A(d) order ignores the reply I gave to a s.133(6) notice two years ago. If I take it to the High Court, does the reassessment end - or does it start again?
The Tribunal gave me a small percentage addition on disputed purchases. Can the department get the whole disallowance back on appeal?
The officer says my purchases are accommodation entries. Can he add the whole purchase, or only a percentage?
