| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 7907 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 147 Section 148 Section 151
In colum No. 12 of format for recording reasons for initiating proceedings under section 147 the Jt.CIT mentioned only 'yes' I am satisfied that it was a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 then it was apparent that Jt. CIT had not recorded proper satisfaction after due application of mind and gave the approval in a mechanical manner.
|
Reassessment - Validity - Sanction of competent superior authority given in mechanical manner -
Assessee contended that Column No. 12 mentioned in the copy of reasons recorded by the AO and approval granted by the JCIT, wherein, the AO had erred in assumption of jurisdiction under section 147/148 on the basis of invalid and mechanical approval as evident from cursory look to reasons format as mere endorsement in Column No. 12 was made as 'Yes, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148', which shows that Jt. CIT had not recorded proper satisfaction after due application of mind and gave the approval in a mechanical manner and appeal of the assessee may be allowed accordingly by quashing the reassessment proceedings.Held: Since in the present case the approving authority had given approval to the reopening of assessment in a mechanical manner without due application of mind by mentioning only 'Yes, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148' in Column No. 12 of the format for recording the reasons for initiating proceedings under section 147. For obtaining the approval of the Addl./Jt.CIT CIT, the legal issue in dispute was squarely covered by the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, hence, following the aforesaid precedent, i.e., ITAT, SMC, Bench, New Delhi decision dated 26-9-2019 in the case of Krishna Print Pack v. ITO [in ITA No. 5135/Del/2018] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 7125 (Del-Trib)] relevant to assessment year 2009-10, the reassessment was quashed and accordingly, the legal ground was allowed.
Followed:Krishna Print Pack v. ITO [decided in ITA No. 5135/Del/2018] : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 7125 (Del-Trib). Distinguished:Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO & Ors. (1999) 236 ITR 341 (SC) : 1999 TaxPub(DT) 348 (SC), Yuvraj v. UOI (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bom) : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1704 (Bom-HC), Devi Electronics Pvt Ltd v. ITO (Bom) 2017-TIQL-92-HC-MUM- II : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 285 (Guj-HC) and Acorus Unitech Wireless (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2014) 362 ITR 417 (Del) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1400 (Del-HC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|