9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where the notice u/s. 148 is issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Hence,reopening in the case in hand is not valid as the Assessing Officer has not satisfied the mandatory condition as provided u/s. 151(1) read with proviso being the satisfaction of Pr. CCIT/CCIT/PCIT/CIT. Accordingly, the reopening of the assessment is quashed being void and consequently the reassessment order is also liable to be quashed as void ab initio. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.141/ALLD/2019 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2021 - Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri S.K. Khanduja, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A.K. Singh, CIT (DR) ORDER PER SHRI VIJAY PAL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee reserves the right to add, alter, delete or rescind any ground of appeal. 6. Because the order of the ACIT is generally bad both on facts and in law. 2. The Grounds No. 1 and 2 regarding validity of reopening of the assessment for want of sanction/satisfaction of Pr. CCIT/CCIT/PCIT/CIT. The assessee company filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 31.10.2007 declaring total income of ₹ 25,27,660/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 22.12.2009 at a total amounting to ₹ 26,27,660/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 29.03.2014 and completed the reassessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliable Finhold Ltd. (Supra) as well as in the case of Dr. Shashi Kant Garg, vs. CIT (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also upheld the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aquatic Remedies (P.) Ltd. (Supra). Hence, the AR has contended that the reopening is not validity and the same is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, ld. D.R. has submitted that the provision of Section 151(1) are attracted only when the reopening is done by the Assessing Officer who is below the rank of ACIT/DCIT whereas in the case in hand, reopening of the assessment is by the DCIT who is not below the rank of ACIT/DCIT and consequently sub section (2) of Section 151 is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sfied 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 Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal 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 Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the end of the assessment year therefore, the proviso to sub section (1) is attracted in this case. The proviso to sub section (1) specifically requires the satisfaction/sanction of Pr. CCIT/CCIT/PCIT/CIT before issuing the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliable Finhold Ltd. (Supra) while considering an identical issue has held in para 9 and 10 as under: In the present case, admittedly the original assessment was under Section 143(3). The notice under Section 148 was sought to be issued more than four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. The assessment year is A.Y. 1998-99. Notice under Section 148 was issued on 29 March 2005. In the circumstance, clearl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its proviso will come Into operation for the Assessing Officers who are below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner but in this case the reopening has been done by Deputy Commissioner, Cir - II, Allahabad, for which the S. 151(2) comes into operation as per which the satisfaction and approval from Joint Commissioner is required. Section 151(2) could have only been fulfilled by the satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner that this is a fit case for the issuance of a notice under Section 148.When the statute mandates the satisfaction of a particular functionary for the exercise of a power, the satisfaction must be of that authority. Where a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
