2018 (7) TMI 371 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 148 - validity of reason assigned by the AO in the purported reasons to believe - approval in accordance with law - Commissioner/board satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the ITO/IAC(A) that it is a fit case for the issue a notice - Held that - As per the mandate of section 151 (2) of the Act, the Competent Authority has to examine the reasons, material or grounds on which the reopening is sought to be based and to judge as to whether they are sufficient and adequate to the formation of the necessary belief of escapement of income from taxation on the part of the AO. It is if and only if the Competent Authority, after applying his mind, is of the opinion that the AO s belief is well reasoned and bonfide, that he will accord his sanction thereon. Also In Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha (1971 (1) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT), it has been held that where the Commissioner, while granting the sanction just noted the word Yes and affixed his signature thereunder, he had only mechanically accorded permission, and that the important safe-guards provided in section 151 were lightly treated. Thus the approval granted by the Pr. CIT in the present case, is also found to be unsustainable in law and the same is quashed alongwith all proceedings pursuant thereto - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Act.
2. Validity of reasons assigned by the AO in the "reasons to believe".
3. Confirmation of addition towards deposits in bank account.
4. Non-admission of additional evidence by CIT (Appeals).
5. Legality and adherence to principles of natural justice in the order dated 17.08.2017.
6. Validity of mechanical approval granted by Pr. Commissioner under section 151.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of initiation of proceedings under section 148 of the Act:
The assessee contested the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 148, arguing that the CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the initiation. The Tribunal analyzed whether the approval for issuing the notice was in accordance with the law. The Tribunal found that the approval was mechanical and lacked application of mind, as it merely stated "Yes" without any detailed reasoning or examination of the material on record. This mechanical approval was deemed unsustainable in law, leading to the quashing of the approval and all subsequent proceedings.

2. Validity of reasons assigned by the AO in the "reasons to believe":
The assessee argued that the reasons recorded by the AO were based on conjectures and surmises, lacking a valid basis for the belief that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal referred to precedents where similar mechanical approvals were found invalid. It was highlighted that the reasons must be based on tangible and relevant material, which was not the case here. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons recorded did not constitute a valid basis for initiating proceedings under section 147.

3. Confirmation of addition towards deposits in bank account:
The CIT (Appeals) confirmed an addition of ?11,15,474 towards deposits in the bank account, disregarding the explanation and documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in detail as the primary focus was on the validity of the initiation of proceedings and the approval process. However, since the entire proceedings were quashed, this addition also fell through.

4. Non-admission of additional evidence by CIT (Appeals):
The assessee contended that the CIT (Appeals) erred in not admitting additional evidence in the form of a registered sale deed, which was crucial for the case. The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the reasons for the failure to produce the evidence before the Assessing Authority. However, since the proceedings were quashed on the grounds of invalid approval, this issue became moot.

5. Legality and adherence to principles of natural justice in the order dated 17.08.2017:
The assessee argued that the order dated 17.08.2017 was wrong, illegal, and against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal's decision to quash the approval and subsequent proceedings indirectly addressed this issue, as the foundational approval itself was found to be legally untenable.

6. Validity of mechanical approval granted by Pr. Commissioner under section 151:
The Tribunal extensively analyzed the nature of the approval granted by the Pr. Commissioner, which was a simple "Yes" without any detailed reasoning. The Tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, which established that such mechanical approvals without application of mind are invalid. The Tribunal concluded that the approval in question was not in accordance with the law, leading to the quashing of the entire assessment proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the approval granted by the Pr. CIT and all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order. The decision emphasized the necessity for detailed and reasoned approvals in initiating reassessment proceedings, ensuring adherence to legal standards and principles of natural justice.

← Previous Next →