9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the department. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA Nos. 5136/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 5-11-2015 - Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena A. Pillai, JM For The Assessee : Sh. Amit Goel, CA For The Revenue : Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 23.07.2012 of CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi. 2. The only grounds raised in this appeal reads as under: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in quashing the reopening the assessment and holding the assessment to be null and void. He failed to appreciate that when Addl. CIT records his satisfaction then only he forwards the proposal to the CIT just because the CIT has also given his approval it does not become illegal. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the original assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 26.02.2005 at an income of ₹ 25,42,690/-. Later on, the case was reopened after recording the following reasons: In this return was filed on dated 01.11.2004 at return income of ₹ 25, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 55,45,710/- by making the additions of ₹ 30,03,015/- u/s 68 of the act. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the reopening by submitting that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued beyond four years and the permission before issuing the notice was not obtained from the prescribed/competent authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs SPL s Siddhartha Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223. 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee quashed the assessment by observing at page nos. 6 to 8 of the impugned order as under: I have called for the record and verified. The AO has obtained the approval of CIT. The following are the relevant columns in the report submitted to the CIT: FROM FOR RECORDING THE REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 AND FOR OBTAINING THE APPROVAL OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-VI, NEW DELHI 1. Name address of the assessee : M/s Tarun International Ltd., 5037, Excelsior Cinema, Street Sirikiwalan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be held invalid. The provisions of Section 151 are as under: 151. Sanction for issue of notice. (1) In a case where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, unless the Joint Commission is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice: Provided that, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2) In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of joint Commissioner, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the same. 7. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the impugned order and reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: CIT Vs SPL s Siddhartha Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Del) DSJ Communication Ltd. Vs DCIT (2014) 222 Taxman 129 (Bom) Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom) Sunint Investment Technologies (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012) 54 SOT 126 (Del ITAT) ITO Vs Tirupati Cylinders Ltd. (Del. ITAT order dated 28.09.2013) ITO Vs Tirupati Cylinders Ltd. (Del. ITAT order dated 30.09.2014 Gajinder Singh Chhabra Vs ITO (2014) 50 Taxmann.com 312 (Del. Trib) Jai Prakash Ahuja Vs ITO (2014) 48 Taxmann.com 86 (Lucknow Trib.) 8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, admittedly the AO was not sure as to whether scrutiny assessment was passed in this case or not which is clear from his report furnished to the ld. CIT(A) for obtaining his permission/sanction. The ld. CIT(A) on perusing the recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
