2016 (2) TMI 796 - HC - Income Tax

Non-compliance with the legal requirements under Section 147 and the proviso to Section 151 (1) - CIT has not recorded any satisfaction and has merely affixed his signature on the file without even putting a date or any other word in addition to such signature - Held that - Factually the CIT had merely affixed his signature on the note of the ACIT forwarded to him. Certainly, this was not in conformity with the mandatory legal requirement explained by this Court in several decisions including United Electrical Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2002 (10) TMI 86 - DELHI High Court) - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-compliance with legal requirements under Section 147 and proviso to Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Listing of appeal filed by father-in-law of Respondent Assessee along with Respondent's appeal.
3. Legal conformity of Commissioner of Income Tax's actions.
4. Consistency of ITAT decision with legal position.

Analysis:

1. The judgment primarily addresses the issue of non-compliance with legal requirements under Section 147 and the proviso to Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Respondent Assessee's counsel argued that the ITAT favored the Respondent due to the Revenue's failure to meet these legal requirements. Specifically, it was highlighted that the Commissioner of Income Tax did not record any satisfaction as mandated by law. Instead, the Commissioner merely affixed his signature on the file without providing any additional details, which was deemed non-compliant with legal standards.

2. Another issue raised was the listing of the appeal filed by the father-in-law of the Respondent Assessee along with the Respondent's appeal. The Appellant's counsel urged the Court to list both appeals together since the facts of both cases were interconnected. However, the Court decided not to take up the father-in-law's appeal simultaneously, stating that the decision regarding the Respondent's case was in line with established legal principles and did not warrant further examination.

3. The judgment also delved into the legal conformity of the actions taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax. It was noted that the Commissioner had only affixed his signature on a note forwarded by the ACIT, without fulfilling the necessary legal requirements. This lack of compliance with legal procedures, as emphasized by previous court decisions, was deemed unacceptable.

4. Lastly, the Court concluded that the decision of the ITAT regarding the Respondent Assessee was consistent with the settled legal position. It was determined that no substantial question of law arose for consideration by the Court in this matter. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the Court affirming the ITAT's decision in favor of the Respondent Assessee. The dismissal, however, was stated to be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the appeal filed by the father-in-law of the Respondent.