9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) also noted that similar view has been expressed by the coordinate bench of Delhi in case of ITO Vs. NC Cables Ltd (Delhi) [ 2014 (11) TMI 593 - ITAT DELHI] wherein, it was held that the commissioner did not record his satisfaction as contemplated u/s 151 rather approved the proposal by stating approved and putting his signature then the approval is invalid for the reason that ACIT has not recorded his satisfaction as required under the law in the light of the material relied upon by the AO. We are unable to see any infirmity, perversity or any other reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the CIT(A) on this count. Regarding a non compliance proposal rendered in the case GK Driveshaft India Ltd [ 2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] CIT(A) concluded that the assessment proceedings as well as the remand proceedings did not reflect objection filed by the assessee to the reopening of the assessment were disposed by the AO. CIT(A) rightly noted that the objections raised by the appellant were dealt with and disposed off by the AO in the assessment order itself and no separate order of disposing the objection of the appellant has been passed. Therefore, we are in agreement with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings. The ld AR submitted that the sanction from JCIT u/s 151 of the Act to initiate reassessment proceedings is bad in law as he has not recorded his satisfaction and merely approved the proposal of the AO in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The ld AR also submitted that the AO has passed reassessment order without first disposing the objections of the assessee on issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act therefore, on this counts the ld CIT(A) was right in annulling the order of reassessment proceedings and consequent reassessment order. The ld AR also took us at para 4.4 to 4.6 of the order of the first appellate order and submitted that the ld CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and granted relief to the assessee. Therefore, the first appellate authority may kindly upheld and dispose the ground No. 1 of revenue. 5. On careful consideration of the rival submission, first of all we note that the ld CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee on two counts viz approval u/s 151 of the Act and AO has not followed mandatory provision laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshft (India) Ltd Vs. ITO reported as 259 ITR 19 (SC). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Ltd. vide order dated 14.11.2014 wherein Addl. CIT has simply recorded that he has granted approval and has not recorded his satisfaction as required under the law. In view of this, I hold that in the case of appellant also, issuance of notice u/s 151 of the Act is invalid for the reason that the Addl. CIT has not recorded his satisfaction as required under the law in the light of material relied upon by AO. He has simply affixed the words approved below the proposal of AO for Issuance of the notice u/s 151 of the Act which is contrary to the provisions of Section 151 of the Act and the opinions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court/ITAT. 4.5 The third objection raised by appellant is that reassessment proceedings are bad in law and without jurisdiction as the objections raised by appellant were not disposed of by AO in terms of judgment of Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. vs ITO 259 ITR 19. I have gone through the objections of appellant. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. (supra) has settled the issue in this regard. As per the judgment, after the issue of notice u/s 148, assessee is required to file the ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above discussion, it is held that since the Addl. CIT has not recorded his satisfaction on the reasons recorded by AO for reopening of reassessment and secondly, AO has not followed the mandatory procedure as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. (supra), the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act and consequent reassessment proceedings in the case of appellant are invalid and liable to be quashed. I, therefore, hold the notice issued by AO u/s 148 of the Act as invalid and annul and reassessment proceedings. The grounds taken by appellant are allowed. 6. On careful consideration of the above rival submission and findings recorded by the ld CIT(A) we clearly observe that the ld CIT(A) noted that the additional CIT(A) has mentioned a word approved on the proposal of the AO for issuance notice u/s 151 of the Act. He has not recorded his satisfaction towards reasons recorded by the AO therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case United Electrical Co. (P) Ltd Vs. CIT 258 ITR 317 wherein, it was held that the power vested to the Commissioner/ Additional CIT as in the case of the present assessee to gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
