9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , notice u/s 148 of the Act and re assessment orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act cannot be held as valid and sustainable and we quash the same. See CIT Vs. Amar Khosla [2016 (2) TMI 796 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del /2009, CO No. 118 & 119/Del/2009 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2016 - Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member, And Shri L. P. Sahu, Accountant Member For the Petitioner : Shri Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv For the Respondent : Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, SR. DR ORDER Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member The above two appeals by the Revenue and their cross objections by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi, dated 02/01/2009 for A.Ys 2000-01 and 2002-03 respectively. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that original return of income was filed on 28.11.2000 and 3.10.2002 for respective A.Ys 2000-01 and 2002-03. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Investigation Directorate about the bogus accommodation entries, the case was reopened for both the years u/s 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the Act'] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put his signature alongwith date 27.2.2006 which clearly shows that the permission has been granted without perusal of record and without application of mind mechanically which cannot be held as valid permission for initiation of legal sustainable proceedings and notice u/s 147/148 of the Act. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court dated 20.7.20106 in the case of CIT Vs. Amar Khosla in ITA No. 133/2014 , the ld. AR vehemently contended that when the ld. CIT(A) has merely affixed his signature on the note of the AO forwarded to him, then certainly this was not in confirmatory with the legal requirement explained by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in various decisions including the decision in the case of United Electrical Co. Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 317 [Del]. The ld. Counsel also placed copy of reasons recorded by the AO for A.Y 2002-03 submitted that in the reasons recorded or this year, the AO has not obtained any sanction for initiation of proceedings and issuance of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act. Therefore, the proceedings and notice deserve to be quashed and the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts and in the circumsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwarded to him. Certainly, this was not in conformity with the mandatory legal requirement explained by this court in several decisions including United Electrical Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 317. 4. Consequently, notwithstanding that the Respondent s father-in-law Tej Mohan Sachdeva whose appeal was also considered by the common order of the ITAT is to be listed before the court, the court is not persuaded to take up this case at such time the said appeal is taken up. On facts, the court is satisfied that the decision of the ITAT qua the respondent assessee is consistent with the settled legal position and no substantial question of law arises for determination by the court. 8. At this juncture, it would be necessary and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the Tribunal order in the case of Amar Khosla [supra] which reads as under: 19. We have already extracted the reasons recorded and the approval of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi at page 2 and 3 of this order. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has countersigned below the noting of the Addl.CIT without writing anything. Now the issue is whether such affixin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the petition and quash the impugned notice dt. April 30, 2002. The rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. (Emphasis ours) 20.2. This is a case where the ACIT has accorded approval as follows: Yes, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act . The Hon ble High Court in this case has came to a conclusion that there was information on record, which could provide a foundation to the Assessing Officer, that the petitioners transaction with Visa Fincap Ltd. was not genuine and that its income had escaped assessment on that count. The approval of the ADIT, in the context of this finding of the High Court on the reasons recorded, was held to be mechanical exercise without proper application of mind. To this extent the arguments of the Ld.DR that the judgement of the High Court has to be read with the context that no information was available on record have to be upheld. Nevertheless a perusal of the file shows that the CIT has simply signed against the column in which his designation is mentioned, without mentioning anything. Thus in our view, these arguments of the Ld.D.R. that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature, in our view, cannot be presumed that the CIT has approved the reasons recorded with application of mind. 21.1. Though we appreciate the concern expressed by the Ld. D.R. in his written submissions, the statutory requirements cannot be given a go-by. In view of the above, the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi when we logically analyse the facts and circumstances of the case, it is amply clear that while granting sanction u/s 151 of the Act for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Additional CIT, Range 13, New Delhi only put his signature alongwith date 27.02.2006 which is not suffice to show application of mind by sanctioning authority. Furthermore, from the copy of reasons recorded by the AO for A.Y 2002-03, we are unable to see any sanction as required u/s 151 of the Act prior to issuance of notice showing the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that in the present case, mandatory sanction u/s 151 of the Act for issuance of notice has not been granted by the competent authority with full application of mind and thus, the AO could not assume valid jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
