2025 (1) TMI 914 - SCH - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Default in sanction/approval u/s 151 as obtained and granted without application of mind - Petitioner claimed that despite certain transactions being booked under the PAN of erstwhile company (amalgamated company) due to an error, they had correctly considered all transactions in their return - as decided by HC 2024 (3) TMI 1082 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT a typographical error could have been committed by the AO, who was seeking the approval, but if only the Additional/Joint CIT or the PCIT had read the approval application and the draft of the order to be issued under Section 148A(d) they would have certainly noticed the discrepancy and they should have either refused approval or sent the application back to the AO for filing correct form for approval - Delay filling SLP HELD THAT - There is a gross delay of 181 days in filing the Special Leave Petition which has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. Even otherwise, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits.

Summary

In the Supreme Court case presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan, the Court addressed a Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner, represented by Mr. N Venkataraman, A.S.G., and others. The Court noted a "gross delay of 181 days" in filing the petition, which was "not satisfactorily explained by the petitioner." Additionally, the Court found "no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court." Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was "dismissed on the ground of delay as well as merits," and any pending applications were also disposed of.