9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is unsustainable We hold that notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act with the prior approval of Ld. CIT is not in accordance with the provisions of section 151(2) of the Act and hence the same is not sustainable. In that view of the matter the impugned assessment order would get vitiated. Accordingly, the assessee wins on this issue. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 602/Bang/2015 - - - Dated:- 30-9-2021 - N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President And B.R. Baskaran, Member (A) For the Appellant : Narendra Sharma, A.R. For the Respondents : Sankar Ganesh, D.R. ORDER B.R. Baskaran, Member (A) 1. The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 29.12.2014 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru and it relates to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority. Hence the impugned assessment is invalid and liable to be quashed. In support of these contentions, the Ld. A.R. placed his reliance on the following decisions: 1. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Vs. ACIT (2012) 20 taxmann.com 716 (Bom.) 2. CIT Vs. Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd. (2015) 58 taxmann.com 336 (Delhi) 3. CIT Vs. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. (2012) 17 taxmann.com 138 (Delhi.) 4. Gajinder Singh Chhabra Vs. ITO (2014) 50 taxmann.com 312 (Delhi-Trib) 5. Sardar Balbir Singh Vs. ITO (2015) 61 taxmann.com 320 (Lucknow-Trib) 4. The Ld. D.R. on the contrary submitted that the provisions of section 151 of the Act prescribe for getting approval from higher authorities, in order to protect the interests of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 6. In the instant case, undisputed fact is that the assessee was not earlier assessed to tax for assessment year 2005-06 and hence no assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act is available. In that situation, the provisions of section 151(2) of the Act is applicable to the facts of the present case, as per which the A.O. is required to obtain approval from Joint Commissioner of Income tax. On the contrary, the A.O. has obtained approval from Ld. Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income Tax under section 117(1). In the present case, the record before the Court indicate that the Assessing Officer submitted proposal on 28 March 2011 to the CIT(1) Thane through the Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax Range (1) Thane. On 28 March 2011, the Additional CIT forwarded the proposal to the CIT and after recording a gist of the communication of the Assessing Officer stated that: As requested by the A.O. Necessary approval for issue of notice u/s. 148 may kindly he granted in case, if approved. On this a communication was issued on 29 March 2011 from the office of the CIT(1) conveying approval to the proposal submitted by the Assessing officer. There is merit in the contention raised on behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement with the judgement of the Delhi High Court. 7. Identical view has been expressed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, following above said decisions rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and Delhi, we hold that notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act with the prior approval of Ld. CIT is not in accordance with the provisions of section 151(2) of the Act and hence the same is not sustainable. In that view of the matter the impugned assessment order would get vitiated. Accordingly, the assessee wins on this issue. 8. In view of the above, we quash the orders passed by the tax authorities for the year under consideration. Since we have quashed the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
