9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner is a Private Limited Company and engaged in production/ manufacture and sale of soapstone powder for the last several years. Soapstone is a massive, soft, greenish talcose rock, with a high percentage of tale mixed with various other magnesium minerals like, chlorite, serpentine, magnesite, antigorite and enstatite and sometimes quartz, magnetite or pyrite. 6. The Golecha Group of Industries is a pioneer in production of soapstone powder and its export outside India. On account of the industrial units set up by the Golecha group of industries, livelihood is provided to a large number of wage earners employees, staff and precious foreign exchange is earned to the country and is also registered under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 as well as 1994. 7. To promote industries in the backward areas and to give incentive to the assessee to put up industries in backward areas section 80HH was inserted in the Income-tax Act, 1961 and in view of the provisions the company being entitled to such deduction during different years and such deduction was duly allowed after scrutiny, verification, examination and satisfaction by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. 8. Similarly fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. 14. Herein the instant case the sanction has been accorded by the Addl. Commissioner, Income-tax who is not authorised to grant sanction, therefore, on this ground also the notice is illegal, bad and also contrary to the provisions of law. 15. In support of the contention learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC), CIT v. A. Raman & Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC), Jayantilal Patel v. Asstt. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 5881 (Raj.), CIT v. Instrumentation Ltd. [1993] 201 ITR 117 (Raj.), Dr. Hamendra Surana v. State of Rajasthan [1993] 90 STC 251 (Raj.), Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC), [2002] 124 Taxman 82 (sic) and referred the ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this High Court whereby the Supreme Court and High Court have held that petitioner can challenge the show-cause notices if it is found that the notice which has been issued is per se illegal and contrary to the provisions of law and without following due process of law. 16. He also referred aforesa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olecha v. ITO [1982] 134 ITR 119 (Raj.) and Rajan Products v. Union of India 2001 Tax World (XXIV) 422. He has given much emphasis on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rajan Products (supra). 20. He also referred a judgment in Asstt. CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. AIR 1985 SC 330 just to show that the sanction order is not required to be made available to the petitioner prior to issuance of the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N.M. Ranka has controverted all the objections raised by learned counsel for the respondent Mr. J.K. Singhi and he referred the judgment of Vimal Chandra Golecha's case (supra) and submitted that the judgment which has been referred by respondents' counsel rather favours the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner instead of the respondents. 22. With regard to the judgment of Rajan Products' ( supra) is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 23. Heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties on the preliminary objections and going through the material available on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents for perusal of this Court. Since this aspect has been challenged by learned counsel for the petitioner that only Joint Commissioner, Income-tax can issue the sanction whereas in the instant case, Addl. Commissioner, Income-tax has issued the sanction who is not authorised under section 151. In the light of this objections I like to discuss the section 151. 29. After careful examination of the provisions of section 151 it reveals that an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner is only empowered to issue (sic) the sanction and not below the rank of Joint Commissioner. It does not bar the Addl. Commissioner, Income-tax to accord the sanction as the Addl. Commissioner is higher officer than the Joint Commissioner and this section does not disqualify the higher officer who has issued the sanction. This provision is only made to ensure that the sanction should not be accorded by the Officer below than the Joint Commissioner. 30. On that aspect I am not convinced with the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner and sanction accorded by Addl. Commissioner is in accordance with the section 151 and it is not contrary to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
