9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners will be deemed to be an authenticated document. In the 'Note' appended at the bottom of sanction/approval under Section 151 it is mentioned that if digitally signed , the date of signature may be taken as date of document. Further submission of learned counsel for respondents in this regard is that approval is an inter-departmental correspondence; notices issued to petitioners are digitally signed by AO. Hence, in view of aforementioned provision of law as also submission of learned counsel for respondents based on the Notification No.4/2017 dated 03.04.2017 documents granting sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 cannot be said to be an unauthenticated document. We not find present to be a fit case to interfere with proceedings of re-assessment initiated by respondent Department against petitioners upon issuance of notice under Section 148. - WPT No. 28 of 2022, 31 of 2022, 37 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2022 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu For the Petitioners : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mrs. Naushina Afrin Ali with Mr. Ajay Kumrani,Advocates on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieve in terms of Section 147 of the Act of 1961 that income of assessees has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer has not supplied reasons to believe along with notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. Material based upon which Assessing Officer recorded reason to believe was not supplied nor sanction/ approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 was supplied. On receipt of impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, petitioners submitted an application (Annexure P-2) before the Assessing Officer for providing copy of reasons recorded for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 along with documents relied upon as also copy of sanction / approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 151 of the Act of 1961. Respondents along with Covering Memo dated 27.9.2021 (Annexure P-3) supplied Annexure-A containing reasons for proceeding under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, but copy of sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 was not supplied. Petitioners made reminder request for providing copy of sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 on 30.9.2021 but the same was not provided to them. As time was runn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the documents, which are forwarded to the petitioners, bears digital signature of authority. In absence of digital signature on sanction/approval under Section151 of the Act of 1961, the same cannot be treated to be a valid approval. In absence of proper sanction/approval, notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 could not have been issued. Remarks of approving authority, as appearing in approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961, would show that there is total non-application of mind and approval, if any, has been granted in a mechanical manner. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, who is higher authority, is having important responsibility to consider material placed before him recording reasons to believe by Assessing Officer and after analysing reasons recorded by Assessing Officer, higher authority like Joint Commissioner of Income Tax or Principal Commissioner of Income Tax can approve or reject proposal sent by the Assessing Officer. In case at hand, at the time of considering proposal for grant of approval, no records and files were forwarded to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. Mere making mention of 'fit case' or 'yes' in approval by the Joint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 SCC 72; judgements of Delhi High Court in cases of Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2015 SCC Online Del. 9693 ; Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2017 SCC Online Del 10863; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2017 SCC Online Del 8691; 8. Mrs. Naushina Aafrin Ali, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposes submissions of learned counsel for petitioners and submits that based on information collected/ received by Assessing Officer about three suspicious transactions of petitioner Jugalkishore Paliwal (WPT No.28/2022), first related to M/s Navdurga Traders (Proprietor- Shri Vijay Kumar Shamra); second related to M/s Shrinath Paddy Process (Proprietor- Shri Amar Kumar Sahu) and third related to M/s Shri Shyamji Rice Agrotech (Proprietor- Shri Sushil Kumar Maurya). Upon examination of all three suspicious transactions, it revealed that petitioner Jugal Kishore Paliwal had obtained bogus purchase bills to the tune of ₹ 1,73,83,410/- from aforementioned proprietorship firms in the financial year 2015-16. Summons were issued u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, which makes the approval itself invalid, is not correct. Referring to Section 282 (A) of the Act of 1961, she submits that this Section provides that mentioning of name and designation of authority on any document is sufficient for its authentication. Every income tax authority is provided with separate DIN Document Number; in approval granted under Section 151 of the Act of 1961, DIN Document Number is specifically mentioned. She relied upon Notification No.4/2017 issued by CBDT dated 3.4.2017 in support of her contention. Furthermore, approval/sanction under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 is an internal correspondence and exchange of document between authorities, hence it is identified by DIN Document number. In approval/sanction under Section 151 of the Act of 1961, the authority concerned has mentioned yes, fit , which is mentioned only after due application of mind. The High Court of Gujarat in case of Lalita Ashwin vs. State of Gujarat reported in Special Civil Application Nos.1626 1627/2014 has observed that only because the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax granted approval by writing 'yes' to the reasons recorde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by respective parties. 12. So far as submission of learned counsel for petitioners that there was no proper sanction/approval on the date of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 is concerned, provision under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 provides for sanction for issuance of notice . Authority prescribed for grant of sanction/approval within four years of relevant assessment year is the 'Joint Commissioner of Income Tax'. Under Section 151 (2) of the Act of 1961 the Joint Commissioner is required to record his satisfaction on the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer. Respondents along with their additional reply have placed on record copy of screen shot of ITBA web portal in which there is mention of 'print approval' against name of respective petitioner with DIN number showing status to be generated with an option to view attachments. From the screen shot placed on record by respondents along with their additional return, accord of sanction/approval with DIN number of authority showing status to be generated on 31.3.2021, prima facie it cannot be said that there was no sanction/approval for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1961. Based on reasons to believe recorded by Assessing Officer in Annexure-A, the approving authority granted approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961. At this stage, this Court is to consider whether notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 issued to petitioners are after following the procedure prescribed under the law or not. In the facts of the case, I do not find any substance in submission of learned counsel for petitioners that sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 is bad in law and it is hereby repelled. 15. The judgment in case of S. Goyanka Lime Chemicals Ltd. (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners is concerned, in that case petitioner therein submitted objection which was rejected. Final assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Act of 1961 was passed. Assessee aggrieved by assessment order filed appeal. Appellate authority considering entire record and material has held that the authority accorded sanction not applied his mind and it was done in mechanical manner. In case at hand that stage is still to come and petitioners will have the opportunity to raise grounds before appellate authority. Satisfaction recorded b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. Since, the belief is that of the Income-tax Officer, the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief, is not for the Court to judge but it is open to an assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or that the belief was not at all a bona fide one or was based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information. To that limited extent, the Court may look into the conclusion arrived at by Income-tax Officer and examine whether there was any material available on the record from which the requisite belief could be formed by the Income-tax Officer and further whether that material had any rational connection or a live link for the formation of the requisite belief.. 17. In case of Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO Centre Excise XI, Range Bombay ors reported in (2008) 14 SCC 218 Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering as to sufficiency of reasons to believe at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 has held thus:- 3.In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me-tax authority, such notice or other document shall be signed and issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form by that authority in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. (2) Every notice or other document to be issued, served or given for the purposes of this Act by any income-tax authority, shall be deemed to be authenticated if the name and office of a designated income-tax authority is printed, stamped or otherwise written thereon. (3) For the purposes of this section, a designated income-tax authority shall mean any income-tax authority authorised by the Board to issue, serve or give such notice or other document after authentication in the manner as provided in subsection (2). 20. Perusal of Section 282-A of the Act of 1961 would show that this provision is brought into by way of amendment for the purpose of authentication of notice and other documents. Sub-section (2) of Section 282-A of the Act of 1961 envisages that every notice or other document to be issued, served or given for the purpose of this Act by any Income Tax authority shall be deemed to be authenticated if name and office of designated income tax authority is printed/stampe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
