TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y quashed the assessment orders, the various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee against the additions made by the Assessing Officer need no adjudication. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3853/Del/2010 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2014 - SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, JJ. For the Appellant by :- Shri Gurjeet Singh, CA, Shri B.L. Goyal, FCA/AR For the Respondent by :- Shri Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A) order dated 16.3.2010. The relevant assessment year is 2002-03. 2. The grounds raised read as follows :- 1. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law since the initiation of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r upheld amounting ₹ 22,500/- on account of commission estimated on Share Application money is unjustified and bad in law. Alternatively the quantum is disputed. 3. There is a delay of 29 days of filing to this appeal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition for condoning the delay. On perusal of the petition for condonation of delay, we find that there is sufficient cause for the delay in filing this appeal. Therefore in the interest substantial justice, we condone the delay in filing this appeal and take up the matter on merits. 4. The assesse has also filed a petition for filing additional grounds of appeal. The same reads as under :- 1. In the aforesaid case the assessment order is dt. 31.3.2009 which records a fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidering the matter on merits, 6. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- The assesee is a company. It filed return of income on 16.10.2002 admitting an income of ₹ 2448/-. Information was received from the investigation wing, that the assessee had received an amount of 20 lacs during the previous year relevant to the concern assessment year, in the form of cheques/DDs as the accommodation entries from various entities created by one Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal and used by them in the business of accommodation entries. Therefore, a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was issued on 25.3.2009 after obtaining their approval of Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi III, New Delhi. The reassessment u/s 147 read with section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for reopening the assessment is placed at page 26 of the paper book filed by the assessee on 7.9.2010. The Ld. DR s contention is that assessee did not raise any objection before the AO on this issue. The contention of the Ld. DR is that once the assessee submits to the jurisdiction to the AO then subsequently objection with reference to jurisdiction cannot be raised. The sanction by competent authority, as mentioned in section 151 only can assign proper jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer and if such sanction was not obtained, the Assessing Officer lacked the jurisdiction to complete the reassessment proceedings. When the legislature has specifically assigned jurisdiction to a particular authority under the Act to grant sanction then, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer and was rectifiable under section 292B of the Act, has not been found convincing by the Tribunal. Thus, if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the Act authorized under other circumstances than those as defined. It is also established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to record his/her satisfaction or any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should apply his/her independent mind to record his/her satisfaction and further mandatory condition is that the satisfaction recorded should be independent and not borrowed or dictated satisfaction. Law in this regard is now self-settled. In SheoN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
