9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the present case, the case of the assessee has been reopened and notice u/s. 148 has been issued with the approval of the Addl. CIT, therefore, the notice u/s. 148 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Ld. CIT(A) has rigtly declared invalid the Notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act issued on 28.3.2011 for the asstt. Year in dispute i.e. 2004-05, which is beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. NO. 3098 /DEL/2014, I.T.A. NO. 3099 /DEL/2014 - - - Dated:- 27-10-2015 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : None For The Department : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR ORDER These Appeals filed by the Revenue emanate out of separate Orders, both dated 13.3.2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak relevant to assessment year 2004- 05. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, hence, we are diposing of these appeals by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 3098/Del/2014 (AY 2004-05) ITO vs. Smt. Sarti Devi. 2. The following grounds have been raised in the Revenue s Appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same, assessee, nor its authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, I am deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 7. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. I find that the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in dipsute as under:- 1. According to the Section 151(1) proviso which is as under:- Provided that, after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons-recorded by the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is fit case for the issue of such notice . So according to this provision if the Assessing Authority who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner want to reopen the 'case after the expiry of 4 years unless the Commissioner is sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in the above said judgment has also held that if it is not done that is if the approval is to be granted by Commissioner but the case is re-opened with the approval of Additional Commissioner. This was not irregularity curable under section 292 B. The notice was not valid. If the Assessing Officer exercised his jurisdiction under section 147 but merely act at the behest of any superior authority, it must be held that it is clear in this case in hand that Commissioner of Income Tax did not apply his mind or gave any sanction. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Commissioner of Income Tax are quite separate authority. Delhi High Court has held Section 116 of the Act also defines the Income Tax Authorities as a different and distinct authority. Such different and distinct authorities have to exercise their powers in accordance with law as per power given to tdem in specified circumstances. If powers confirmed on a particular authority are arrogated by other authority without mandate law, it will create chaos in the administration of law and hierarchy of administration will mean nothing. Satisfaction of one authority cannot be substituted by satisfaction by anothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice to Rati Ram is bad in law and the notice liable to be quashed. Because there is no information with the Assessing Authority that Rati Ram whose case has been re-opened has some deposit in his own account which are liable to be taxed. 3. The only information on the basis of which the Assessing Authority reopened the case is of ACIT Rewari. ACIT Rewari communicated is belief that there is a huge deposit in OBC Joint Account No.2239 of Rati Ram and Smt. Sarti Devi. The Assessing Authority have mentioned in the assessment order that I have reason to believe that an income to the tune of ₹ 15,15,500/- + Interest Income and any other income chargeable to tax which may come to be knowledge subsequently during the course of assessment proceedings has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2004-05. Here and it is clear that there is no independent belief or reason to believe of Income Tax Officer about escapement of the Income ₹ 15,15,500/- is belief or reason to believe qn the belief and reason to believe of ACIT Rewari. Except the reason to be believe of ACIT Rewari the Income Tax Officer / Assessing Authority has not made any independent enquiry or there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ld. CIT(A) has rigtly declared invalid the Notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act issued on 28.3.2011 for the asstt. Year in dispute i.e. 2004-05, which is beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year. This Notice has not been issued with the approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner upon his satisfaction. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the notice in dispute is invalid and has rightly quashed the same by allowing the appeal of the Assessee. This view has been supported by the various Hon ble High Courts decisions which includes Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other Division Bench 346 ITR 443; Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. SPL s Sidharth Limited Divison Bench 345 ITR 223 as well as the Hon ble Supreme Court of India decision in the case of Anirudhsingh Ji Karan Singh Ji Jedeja versus State of Gujrat (1995) 5 SSC 302. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussions, I find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order on the basis of the various decisions renderred by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India as well as Hon ble High Courts mentioend in the impugned order, which does not nee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
