9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his regard. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law & on facts in holding that proceedings u/s. 147/148 of Income Tax Act are bad & not curable by observing that the reasons for reopening are different from the proposal put up in this regard by failing to appreciate that the reasons recorded for reopening of the case were basically the same as was the proposal. Principally there is no difference except for conciseness and brevity." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 4,14,740/-, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, information was received from ADIT (Inv.), Jalandhar vide letter dated 19.03.2012 that while conducting enquiries in the case of Sh. Kripal Singh Marwaha, Jalandhar, it was gathered that the assessee sold a property bearing number B-IX/2-2182, B-IX/2-2481/22, Civil Lines, Jalandhar to Sh. Amarbir Marwaha, S/o Sh. Kirpal Singh Marwaha for Rs. 65 lakhs on 7.3.2005. The stamp duty of Rs. 8,94,150/- was charged on the value of Rs. 99,35,000/-. Subsequently, the issue of stamp duty chargeable on the property was referred to the Competent Authority, i.e ADC cum Collector, Jalandhar u/s 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 148, which in terms of the provisions of section 151(2) of the Act, was the Joint Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner, whereas in the instant case, the Assessing Officer has obtained the approval of the Commissioner of Incometax nomenclature as Director of Income-tax (IT)-1, which goes to vitiate the proceedings, as held by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in CIT vs. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. in ITA No. 836 of 2011. The assessment order was further assailed on the premise that there was variance between the proposal dated 22.03.2012 sent for approval of issuing notice and the reasons recorded for reopening of the case. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, and placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. (supra) and the other contentions of the assessee, held the reassessment proceedings as invalid on the premise that the approval given by the Commissioner is not in conformity with the provisions of section 151(2) of the Act and that what was approved in the proposal was different from the reasons as provided by the AO to the assessee. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned Departmenta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148". Sd/- 22.03.2012 2. Addl. CIT, Range -9, New Delhi not recorded his satisfaction and just referred the matter to the CIT -III, Delhi by noting as under: "CIT may kindly accord sanction" Sd/- 12.03.2009 3. Case was inadvertently referred to DIT by the Addl. DIT instead sending it to the AO but no approval was sought by him. 3. Case was deliberately referred to the CIT by the Addl. CIT seeking his sanction. 4. As stipulated in section 151(2) personal satisfaction of Joint Commissioner/ Addl. Commissioner was recorded. 4. No such satisfaction was recorded at all by the Addl. Commissioner. (2) Section 151(2) reads as under: "In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (I), no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Deputy 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." From the plain reading of sub section 2 of the section 151 of the IT Act it appears that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n as under : "We may proceed to reopen the case u/s. 147 as proposed above. I am satisfied that this is a fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148." 7. This noting of the Addl. DIT, in our considered opinion, does constitute the approval of the competent authority in the instant case. Merely on the basis that Addl. DIT after recording his satisfaction sent the file to the DIT instead of sending it back to the AO and the DIT having given second approval in the matter, it cannot be said, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, that the competent authority, i.e., Addl. DIT did not accord its approval for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 against the assessee nor does the second approval given by DIT go to mitigate the authenticity of approval given by ld. Addl. DIT, as noted above. In fact, the first approval was given by the competent authority in the instant case. Such facts do not exist in the reported case relied by the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the decision reached by the ld. CIT(A) on this count cannot be supported. 8. Adverting to the second issue regarding variance between the proposal sent for approval and the reasons recorded as supplied to the assessee, which led the ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
