9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case in quashing the reopening of the assessment and holding the assessment to be null and void. He failed to appreciate that when Addl.C.I.T. records his satisfaction then only he forwards the propose to the C.I.T. Just because the C.I.T. has also given his approval it does not become illegal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that originally assessee filed a return declaring income of ₹ 9,95,040 on 31.08.2004 and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (for short the Act). In the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147, the Assessing Officer specifically mentioned that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served to the assessee within the statutory time limit during the original as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment proceedings does not become null and void/illegal. 5. Replying to the above, the assessee s representative submitted that the Assessing Officer himself mentioned in the reassessment proceedings that as a matter of precaution, the permission of Commissioner of Income Tax(A) was obtained because the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether a scrutiny assessment was passed in this regard. The AR further submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly noted that there was no order u/s 143(3) of the Act in the assessee s case for the impugned assessment year. The AR placed his reliance on the judgment of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of C.I.T. vs S.P.L s Siddhartha Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of law and hierarchy of administration will mean nothing. Satisfaction of one authority cannot be substituted by the satisfaction of authority. It is trite that when a state requires, a thing to be done in a certain manner, it shall be done in that manner alone and. the court would not expect its being done in some other manner. It was so held in the following decisions : (i) C.I.T. v. Naveen Khanna (dated November 18, 2009 in I. T. A. No. 21 of 2009(Delhi) ; (ii) State of Bihar v. J. A. C. Saldanha, AIR 1980 SC 326 ; and (iii) State of Gujarat vs Shantilal Mangaldas, AIR 1969 SC 634. Thus, if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined 8 the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inter alia, on the issue of reopening was that since the reopening notice has been issued after expiry of four years from the end of relevant AY, then the Assessing Officer must seek approval of the Joint/Addl.CIT in terms of section 151 of the Act as there was no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act earlier to the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 8. On behalf of the assessee, it was also contended that the Assessing Officer has taken permission from the Commissioner of Income Tax instead of Joint/ACIT, therefore, the reopening of assessment was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and was liable to be quashed. 9. From a careful reading of the operative para of the impugned order, we observe that the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. (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 case for the issue of such notice. On similar factual matrix, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SPL'S Siddartha Ltd., (supra) has upheld the cancellation of assessment. The head note in the said case reads as under: When a statute requires a thing to be done in a certain manner, it shall be done in that manner alone and the court would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable to be quashed. In view of the above discussion, the reassessment is not in accordance with the provisions of Act and accordingly, the reassessment is held to be null and void. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are allowed. 10. At this juncture, it is worthy to take note of the observations and findings of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. SPL'S Siddartha Ltd. wherein it has been held that u/s 151 of the Act, it was only the Jt. Commissioner or Addl. Commissioner who could grant the approval of the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Their lordships further held that if the approval was not granted by Jt. Commissioner or Addl. Commissioner and instead it was taken from Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
