2015 (6) TMI 89 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - jurisdiction of the Officer for re-opening the assessment - Held that - The notice was issued not in pursuant to this letter of the Addl. Commissioner but the notice was issued pursuant to the approval given by the CommissionerConsidering the factual matrix of the case in hand, in the light of the judicial decisions the sanction for issue of notice is not as per the provisions of the law. Thus we hold that the order made under section 143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 147 is without jurisdiction and accordingly quashed. See Anirudh Sinhji Karan Sinhji Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat 1995 (8) TMI 308 - SUPREME COURT - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues:
Cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue against the same order of the Ld. CIT(A)-38, Mumbai for assessment year 2004-05.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction for re-opening assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Officer for re-opening the assessment, claiming non-compliance with due process of law and settled judicial position. The Officer had issued a notice under section 148 without proper approval from the appropriate authority. The relevant provision, Section 151 of the Act, mandates sanction for issuing such notices. The approval granted by the Commissioner did not meet the requirement of the law, as it should have been sanctioned by the Joint Commissioner. The approval granted by a higher authority, in this case, the Commissioner, did not fulfill the statutory requirement. The High Court's observations in similar cases emphasized the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and the distinct roles of different authorities in granting approvals for re-opening assessments.

Issue 2: Compliance with Section 151(2) for issuance of notice under Section 148.

Section 151(2) specifies that no notice can be issued by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner after four years from the relevant assessment year unless approved by the Joint Commissioner. In this case, the approval was granted by the Commissioner, not the Joint Commissioner, as required by law. The court highlighted the significance of statutory provisions and the need for approvals to be granted by the designated authorities as specified in the law. The Delhi High Court's decision in a similar case supported the assessee's stance, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal procedures and the exercise of discretion by the appropriate authority.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal held that the order made under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was without jurisdiction due to non-compliance with the statutory provisions regarding the approval for re-opening the assessment. The assessment order was quashed, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The cross appeal of the Revenue was dismissed for similar reasons. The judgment emphasized the necessity of following legal procedures and the importance of approvals being granted by the designated authorities as per the law to maintain the integrity of the assessment process.