TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent authority for prior approval would be four superior officers, renders Section 151(2) superfluous. If anything the Court is clear that it is not its job to render, in the process of interpretation, an entire provision academic or inoperative. This court is of the opinion that accepting the Revenue’s position would result in that consequence. In this case, since the original assessment was completed “other than” the eventualities contemplated in Section 151(1), i.e. it was processed under Section 143(1). Thus, clearly Section 151(2) applied. Thus there is no infirmity in the order of the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. - Decided against revenue. - ITA 158/2015 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2015 - S. Ravindra Bhat And R. K. Gauba,J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment u/s 143 (3) nor u/s 147 was completed prior to issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.3.2009 i.e. four years beyond the end of the assessment year. Therefore u/s 151 (2) of the Act is applicable to the facts of instant case Section 151(2) of the Act read as under : (2) In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. 8.1. Hence the san ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion by the authority which was required to take that sanction. This is a purely legal issue and can be raised at any stage of proceeding. 3. During the course of the contentions, the Revenue had argued that even otherwise Section 292B of the Act precluded the assessee s objection as to the jurisdictional infirmity of the notice. This was repelled by the ITAT itself. It relied upon a Division Bench ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax V. S.P.L's Siddhartha Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223. 4. The Revenue contends that the ITAT fell into error and relies upon the proviso to Section 151(1) to say that in all cases where re-assessment is proposed, the approval of the highest authorities such as the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment [Section 143(3)] or made in the course of re-assessment proceedings (Section 147) - but within the initial period, Section 151(1) applies. The competent authority would then be the Joint Commissioner; (ii) In the same fact situation, in case the notice is sought to be issued under Section 147 and the proviso to Section 147(1) i.e. beyond the extended four-year period, the competent authority for prior approval to the proposal would be the Principal Chief Commissioner, or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; (iii) In case the original assessment is completed other than i.e. otherwise than under Section 143(3) or during the course of re-assessment proceedings, competent authority would be the Joint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
