9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking officer.
As no satisfaction by the CIT, the satisfaction if any was of the AO, who is not competent in the present case. Appeal of the assessee are allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw and facts of the case therefore the same may kingly be deleted in toto, 5. Appeal dismissed for non-attendance :- Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. NFAC has grossly erred in deciding the appeal ex- parte, without providing sufficient opportunity to appellant, here the Ld. NFAC ought to have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the appeal for non-attendance. 6. The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging the interest u/s 234A, B and C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full.'' ITA NO. 739/JP/2023 A.Y. 2010-11 1. The impugned Ex-party Penalty Order U/s 271(1)( c)/174 dated 24/05/2018 which confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) through Ex-party Appellate order as well as initiation of Penalty proceedings and further issued Notices in respect thereto are illegal, bad in law and on the facts of the case for want of jurisdiction, barred by limitation and various other reasons (grounds), against the provisions and procedure as per law and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence all the conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade in the assessment order that is the subject matter of appeal. Accordingly, being thus found to be without substance, all the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.'' Hence, the ld. CIT (A) has passed the ex parte orders in relation to above appeals of the assessee being non attendance of the appeals nor filing of documents/ evidences to counter the orders of the AO for which the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT(A). 2.2 However, during the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the argued the case by challenging the assessment order on the point of impugned order u/s 147/144 dated 30-11-2017 as well as the action taken u/s 147 & 148 of the Act are bad in law, illegal, invalid, void ab initio on facts of the case for want of jurisdiction, without proper approval and satisfaction of higher authorities u/s 151 of the Act and also barred by limitation and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. The ld. AR also submitted that his arguments are relating to legal issue and not on the addition made by the AO. 2.3 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is noted from the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00 ITR 0397 (Chhattisgarh) ii. CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (2015) 231 TAXMAN 0073 (MP) iii. PAC AIR SYSTEMS P. LTD. vs. ITO (2020) 58 CCH 0001 Del Trib iv. GORIKA INVESTMENT AND EXPORT (P) LTD. vs. ITO (2018) 53 CCH 0168 Del Trib. v. TARA ALLOYS LTD. vs. ITO (2018) 63 ITR (Trib) 0484 (Delhi) And the ld. CIT (A) kept mum on this very legal plea, which shows his contradictory approach. Therefore the notice, reasons recorded assessment all are the illegal bad void ab-initio and barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. It is also noted that the Joint CIT has forwarded a letter of consolidated approval of 26 assessee's vide his order 23.03.2017 (PB5A-5C) and this shows as to how the Ld. Pr. CIT has acted in formal way. On inspection of the assessment record, it has also been noticed that there was no approval in original letter or documents and there is no tick on the name of the assessee (vide Sr. No. 13 at PB-5B). It is surprising as to how an approval can be given of all the 26 different assessee's in one documents whereas all are the independent or separate assessee and their reasons are different. Hence in view of the above facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied" If the case in hand is analysed on the basis of the aforesaid principle, the mechanical way of recording satisfaction by the Joint Commissioner, which accords sanction for issuing notice under section 147, is clearly unsustainable and we find that on such consideration both the appellate authorities have interfered into the matter. In doing so, no error has been committed warranting reconsideration. 20. The ld. A/R has also drawn our attention on the approval of the Pr. CIT placed at page Nos. 7-8 of the paper book and also from the assessment record placed before us, we found that he has given one consolidated approval of 56 different assessee's in one shot through one letter dated 29.03.2016 which is even not signed by him but signed by ITO (T&J), who is not a competent authority to give and signed the approval letter, which shows how the PR. CIT has acted in very formal way. When we examined of the assessment record, it is gathered that the approval was in photocopy and not in original or there was no original letter or documents of approval. Further the name of the assessee was at Sr. 46 out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
