Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 787 - CHATTISGARH HIGH COURTValidity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - unexplained cash deposits - Eligible reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax escaped assessment for that year - HELD THAT:- DDIT issued summons under Section 131 of the Act of 1961 to the assessee. Reply submitted by assessee was not found to be satisfactory. Matter was forwarded to the Assessing Officer, who in turn, verified PAN details of assessee, recorded reasons in terms of Section 147 of the Act of 1961 and thereafter issued notice to him under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. Hence, it cannot be said that at the stage of issuance of notice, there was no prima facie material for reasons to belief that income escaped assessment. Consequently, I do not find any force in first submission of learned counsel for petitioner and it is hereby repelled Approval accorded under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 is not by appropriate authority - The words used while recommending for issuance of notice are sufficient to infer in clear terms that the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax applied his mind on proposal sent to him by the Assessing Officer, recorded his satisfaction for issuance of notice under Section 148 - Hence, even if name of approving authority is mentioned to be 'Principal Commissioner of Income Tax', the same would not make the 'approval' itself invalid. The object of Section 151 of the Act of 1961 is that approval to be accorded by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in the facts of case) and if Joint Commissioner approves the proceedings/ proposal sent by the Assessing Officer to be a fit case, then, in the opinion of this Court, the approval under Section 151 giving details of approving authority as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in itself will not make the approval invalid - in case at hand, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax recorded satisfaction on the proposal of Assessing Officer by mentioning that it is a fit case for issuance of notice. In view of above facts of the case, second ground raised is also not tenable. Approval granted u/s 151 does not bear digital signature of authority, referring to note appended to approval - The note appended says "if digitally signed, the date of digital signature may be taken as date of document". Submission of learned counsel for petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, is not acceptable in view of provisions of Section 282 (a) of the Act of 1961, which provides that notice or other documents to be issued for the purpose of the Act of 1961 by any income-tax authority shall be deemed to be authenticated if name and designation is provided. In approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961, name, designation and office is printed. Hence, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that approval is not digitally signed is also not sustainable, more so when it bears DIN & Document Number. - Decided against assessee.
|