PRAKASH KRISHNA AND RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), JJ. - (1.) THE present appeal has been filed under section 260 -A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 12.10.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A.T No.1002/LUC./2006 for the assessment year 1997 -1998. The assessee filed the return of the income declaring nil income on 28.11.1997. It was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated for reassessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 1.5.2002. The notice was complied with and the matter was examined by the assessing authority. The assessment order was made under section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer by making certain additions as escaped income by the order dated 29.3.2004. The matter was carried in appeal unsuccessfully. Thereafter the matter was carried in further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal who has allowed the appeal by the order under appeal. The appeal has been allowed by the Tribunal without entering into the merits of the case on a short point i.e the notice under section 148 of the Act being beyond four years of the end of the relevant assessment year having been issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax who was not competent is illegal. The Tribunal has placed reliance upon a judgment of the court in the case of Dr. S. K. Garg versus C.I.T (2006) 285 ITR 158.
(2.) IN the memo of appeal, the following question of law has been raised: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble I.T.A.T was justified in allowing assessee's appeal by reversing the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) holding that the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax was not competent authority to issue notice U/s. 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 after the expiry of the four years in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad in the case of Dr. S. K. Garg versus C.I.T (2006) 285 ITR 158 relied upon by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal whereas the said order has been reversed by the Apex Court in the case of Shri Ajay Verma versus C.I.T, Kanpur and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition(Tax) No.1753 of 2007)." Shri R. K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the decision given in the case of Dr. S. K. Garg (Supra) has been subsequently explained by this Court in the case of Ajay Verma versus C.I.T Kanpur and others (2008) 304 ITR 30. The matter was again examined by this Court in ITA No.256 of 2011, the Commissioner of Income Tax -I versus Amarjeet Singh decided on 10.9.2012 wherein it has been held after the following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ACIT versus Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 that once the normal period of reassessment having expired and the permission from the higher authority has been obtained, the reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act can be issued by the Assessing Officer.
(3.) IN this view of the matter, the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the reassessment notice was not issued by the competent authority. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal holding that the notice for reassessment was not issued by the competent authority cannot be allowed to stand. The order of the Tribunal is therefore, set aside.;