2018 (5) TMI 1027 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of notice issued for re-assessment - satisfaction of requirement of section 151(2) before issuance of notice u/s 148 - competent officer to issue notice - Held that - Subsection( 2) of section 151 provides that in cases specified therein, no notice under section 148 of the Act would be issued by an Assessing Officer who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for issuance of such notice. Clearly thus, this requirement was fulfilled. The legal proposition is that when the statute casts a duty on a certain administrative officer, the same must be performed by him and the satisfaction arrived at even by the higher authority would not be sufficient. However, in the present case, there was no lack of satisfaction or exercise of power by the Joint Commissioner. He in clear terms, expressed his satisfaction that on the basis of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it was a fit case for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Merely because the papers were thereafter for some erroneous reason also placed before the Commissioner who also recorded his similar satisfaction would not take away anything from the previous conclusion. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the provisions of S.151(2) of the Income Tax Act were complied with before issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The single issue in the appeal is whether the requirements of subsection(2) of section 151 of the Income Tax Act were met before issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act.

2. The assessee argued that the Joint Commissioner, the competent authority under subsection(2) of section 151, was not approached for necessary sanction; instead, the Commissioner granted approval, which the appellant contended would invalidate the reassessment proceedings. However, the Tribunal held that even if the Commissioner granted approval, it would not vitiate the proceedings since the Joint Commissioner had also approved.

3. The appellant referred to the necessary approval order, citing the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments in support of their argument.

4. The Revenue's counsel opposed the appeal, asserting that the Tribunal correctly found that the conditions of subsection(2) of section 151 were satisfied.

5. The approval proforma contained 13 entries, with the Joint Commissioner expressing satisfaction for issuing the notice under section 148 based on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner also confirmed the need for the notice.

6. The Joint Commissioner's satisfaction and approval were complete, meeting the requirement of subsection(2) of section 151.

7. The statute mandates that the Joint Commissioner must be satisfied for issuing a notice under section 148, and in this case, that requirement was fulfilled.

8. The judgment emphasized that the satisfaction of the designated administrative officer is crucial, and in this instance, the Joint Commissioner had fulfilled his duty by expressing satisfaction based on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer.

9. The court distinguished the present case from precedents where statutory requirements were breached, highlighting that in this case, the proper authority, i.e., the Joint Commissioner, had granted approval as required.

10. Drawing parallels with a Supreme Court case and a Delhi High Court case, the judgment clarified the importance of the correct authority granting approval, which was satisfied in this case.

11. Ultimately, the Tax Appeal and Civil Application were dismissed, affirming that the requirements under subsection(2) of section 151 were met, and the notice for reassessment was valid.