TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se for the issue of such notice. There is difference in the word ‘satisfaction’ and ‘approval’. Approval can be subsequent to the occurrence of the events while the satisfaction, as per the provisions of section 151, has to be prior to the issue of the notice. Satisfaction represents a decision based on the material on record. As noted what the Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax has approved the issuing of the notice u/s 148. He has not given any finding that on the basis of the reasons recorded by the AO, he is satisfied that it is a fit case for the issue of the notice u/s 148 of the Act. What he has done, he has approved the proforma sent by the AO. This approval has also been received by the AO on 29.08.2011 i.e. after the issue of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suing notice u/s 148(2) dated 28.03.2011. The notices came back unserved with the postal remark refused to take the delivery . Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 27.07.2011 calling for the filing of the income-tax return was sent through speed post asking to make the compliance for 10.08.2011. The notice has been issued in each of the case on the basis of the inquiry conducted after the receipt of the TEP that the assessee has sold approximately 25 bigha land after plotting @ ₹ 800/- per sq.yards but the sale deeds were executed at the circle rate @ ₹ 300/- per sq.yards. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee sold the plots of land measuring 4,779.79 sq.mtrs. along with other persons having total circle v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proforma duly approved, are enclosed herewith. 1. Shri Mahender Singh s/o late Shri Baru Singh, Kukura, M.Nagar 2. Smt. Kailashwati w/o late Shri Satyaveer Singh, Kukura, M.Nagar 3. Shri Yogender Singh s/o late Shri Kiran Singh, Kukura, M.Nagar 4. Shri Anuj Kumar s/o late Shri Brij Pal Singh, Kukura, M.Nagar 5. Smt. Raj Kumari w/o late Shri Brij Pal Singh, Kukura, M.Nagar Sd/- ( Sanjay Tripathi) Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax Range 2, Muzaffarnagar. The said approval was received in the office of the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2 (1), Muzaffarnagar on 29.03.2011 which fact is apparent from the receipt date being marked on the said letter available at page 7A of the paper book. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs 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. Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the Joint Commissioner, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself. Sub-section (1) is applicable in case where the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) or section 147 and the notice has been issued after the expiry of four y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Joint Commissioner before the issue of the notice and the AO can issue the notice only after the satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner. I have gone through the letter dated 25.03.2011 which states approval for the issue of notice u/s 148 reg. . This letter subsequently talks of according of the approval and further issue of the notice u/s 148. Section 151, in my opinion, does not talk of approval of the action of the AO but requires satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. There is difference in the word satisfaction and approval . Approval can be subsequent to the occurrence of the events while the satisfaction, as per the provisions of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central India Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. vs. ITO 333 ITR 237. Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr. Shashi Kant Garg v. Commissioner of Income-tax 285 ITR 158 under para 33 of its order held that it is now well settled that a notice issued without obtaining the prior sanction of the authority mentioned in the provisions of section 151 where its proviso to sub-section (1) or the sub-section (2) would be invalid and the entire proceedings taken in pursuance thereof is liable to be quashed and the same would be without jurisdiction. I accordingly quash the order passed in consequence of issuing of the notice u/s 148 (2) of the Act. 9. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
