TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded should be 'independent' and not 'borrowed' or 'dictated' satisfaction, rejected contention of the revenue that obtaining approval from the authority other than the one who was competent to grant such approval, was mere irregularity committed by the Income Tax Officer. And that it was rectifiable under Section 292B of the IT Act cannot be accepted as such irregularity is not curable under Section 292B. In the opinion of this court also, resort to Section 292B of the IT Act cannot be made to validate an action, which has been rendered illegal due to breach of mandatory condition of the sanction on satisfaction of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 151. This is an inherent lacunae affecting the very correctness of the notice under Section 148 and is such which is not curable by recourse to Section 292B of the IT Act. - Reopening notice set aside- Decided in favour of assessee. - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.913/2015, Stay Application No.780/2015 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2015 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq,J. For the Petitioner : Shri Siddharth Ranka, Shri Anuroop Singhi For the Respondent : Shri Saurabh Jain O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner-assessee then submitted detailed objection on 02.01.2015 pointing out various infirmities and illegalities in issuing impugned notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, recording reasons and obtaining sanction. Respondent no.2 ITO, vide letter dated 02.01.2015, provided copy of sanction obtained from Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Jaipur, vide letter dated 27.03.2014. Petitioner-assessee submitted objection against notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, which has been rejected by impugned order dated 15.01.2015. Shri Siddharth Ranka, learned counsel appearing for petitioner-assessee, submitted that there was no failure on the part of petitioner-assessee to disclose fully and truly all material, primary and relevant facts necessary for assessment for assessment year 2007-08. There was no valid reason to believe with the respondents that any income chargeable to Tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act. Reasons have been supplied to petitioner-assessee after 31.03.2014, which is beyond limitation period prescribed under Section 149(1)(b). Entire process has thus been rendered invalid as held by Delhi High Court in Haryana Acrylic M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel for revenue, opposed the writ petition and submitted that a notice under Section 148 read with Section 147 of the IT Act was duly issued to petitioner-assessee after recording due reasons for the same in relation to assessment year 2007-08 on 27.03.2014 and same was served upon petitioner-assessee on 28.03.2014. Reasons recorded for initiation of reassessment proceedings were duly provided to petitioner on 16.12.2014. Proceedings were rightly initiated against petitioner-assessee because there was undisclosed income to the tune of ₹ 51,54,120/- which was of bogus purchases/ accommodation entries shown by petitioner-assessee and deserved to be reassessed. Respondent no.2 ITO, by detailed order dated 15.01.2015, considered all objections raised by petitioner-assessee and found them without any substance and devoid of merit, and consequently after giving due reasons and justifications rejected the objections. It is apparent from aforesaid order dated 15.01.2015 and the reasons recorded for initiating reassessment proceedings and also from the order rejecting the objections and from the information received by the Income Tax Department during sear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he end of the relevant assessment year and if the assessee objected that since original order of assessment was made under Section 143(3), no notice could have been issued without sanction of Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner. The assessee was supplied information under Right to Information Act that no such sanction was obtained. The writ petition was allowed by the Allahabad High Court holding that the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 151 was attracted. It was held that entire exercise of reopening of assessment under Section 148 has failed to meet the basic jurisdictional requirement under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 151 since under the proviso, no notice can be issued except on the satisfaction of the Commissioner or as the case may be, the Chief Commissioner and admittedly there was no such satisfaction in the case of the assessee. Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. H.M. Constructions, supra, similarly held that reopening of assessment to be barred in law as the prior approval of the Commissioner has not been obtained in accordance with proviso to Section 151. Allahabad High Court in Dr. Shashi Kant Garg Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Muzffar nagar, supra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
