Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1215 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - reasons to believe - in original assessment u/s 143(3) AO made independent enquiries u/s 133(6) from the share subscribers in connection with the share capital - HELD THAT:- In the present case the recorded reasons nowhere made out any case that the alleged escapement was resulted as a consequence of the assessee’s omission or failure to disclose truly & fully all material facts necessary for its assessment. In fact we note that in the reasons recorded, the AO had not spoken any facts which would throw light that the disclosed facts of share subscription monies received during the year could be taken as false or untrue or from which it could be inferred that there was any failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of the assessee. We therefore do find any reasons to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) holding that the initiation of reassessment proceedings was bad in law as it did not satisfy the conditions precedent in proviso to Section 147. Sanction granted by the CIT u/s 151 was in a mechanical manner or upon due application of mind - HELD THAT:- We find that on the proforma which is available in the paper book, the Commissioner has simply written “Yes I agree” which does not in any manner shed any light as to whether there was any application of mind at all by the Pr.CIT, who was duty bound to have looked in to carefully the reasons recorded by the AO and seen the history behind the assessment which was proposed to be reopened by the AO. When a superior authority is given power by the legislature, to grant sanction to do an act by an authority below him, then that power needs to be exercised with due care and circumspection and after due application of mind. We note that the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal on similar facts & circumstances in the case of Hirachand Kanunga Vs DCIT [2015 (5) TMI 757 - ITAT MUMBAI] held that a mere mention of ‘approved’ in the report by the Commissioner and thereby according sanction for reopening of assessment u/s 147 did not amount to recording of proper satisfaction u/s 151(1) of the Act and hence held the notice issued u/s 148 to be bad in law. We are therefore of the opinion that the Commissioner had mechanically accorded permission. Thus, we hold that the sanction granted by the Commissioner u/s 151 is invalid and so, the notice of the AO dated 22.03.2016 is bad in law and has to be necessarily struck down. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing therefore, we are in agreement with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein he has cancelled the assessment order passed after reopening u/s 147 of the Act for the reason that the conditions prescribed by law were not complied with resulting in the order passed by the AO being without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity. Accordingly we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue
|