TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord, requirements of section 151 cannot be taken as having been complied with. The binding nature of judicial precedents is only for what they actually decide and not what can be inferred from these judicial precedents. Nothing, therefore, turns on these precedents in the present case. On the contrary, being satisfied that sanction envisaged by the scheme of section 151, i.e. by recording satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for initiating reassessment proceedings, is given by the prescribed authority on the facts of this case, these judicial precedents are not clearly relevant in the present context. - I.T.A. No.3451/Ahd/2014 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2017 - Pramod Kumar AM And Mahavir Prasad JM For The Appellant : Hardik Vora For The Respondent : Jayant Jhaveri ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, AM: 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 1st October 2014 passed by the CIT(A), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2005-06. Grievances raised in ground nos. 1, 2 3, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d position that the approval in this case has been obtained from the Commissioner. He submits that since that the approval is granted by an authority higher, and other, than Joint/Additional Commissioner, the same is vitiated in law. We are thus urged to quash the reassessment proceedings. Learned Departmental representative vehemently relies upon the orders of the authorities below, and submits that even when approval is granted by the commissioner, it is inherent part of process of approval that the Joint Commissioner grants the approval and expresses his satisfaction about the reasons. We are thus urged to confirm the reopening of assessment. In response to a specific question put to the learned counsel for the assessee on whether the Joint/Additional Commissioner had also granted the approval and recorded his satisfaction, he submits that, in the formal note initiated by the ITO, the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income-tax has expressed his satisfaction with the reasons, but then notwithstanding this position and on the same set of facts co-ordinate benches have quashed the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the approval was granted by the Commissioner, even though ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s proposed to be made for first time, if the answer is in the affirmative, please state Yes a Whether any voluntary return had already been filed and Yes b If so, date of filing the said return 28/10/2005 9. If the answer to item 8 is in the negative, please state : a The income originally assessed Rs.1,53,230/-u/s.143(1) b Whether it is a case of under assessment, assessment at lower rate, assessment which has been made subject to excessive relief or allowing, of excessive loss or depreciation N.A. 10. Whether the provisions of section 150(1) are applicable? If the answer is in the affirmative, the relevant facts may be stated against item No. 11 and it may also be brought out that the provisions of section 150(2) would not stand in the way of initiating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner, 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. ( 3) For the purposes of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint 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.] 6. As evident from the plain reading of the above statutory provision, all that is necessary for the prescribed authority to satisfy himself that on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice ; that is all that, for the purpose of section 151, expression sanction or approval refers to. The sanction consists of recording the satisfaction that, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it is a fit case for issue of such notice for reopening the assessment. What is material is that such a satisfaction is recorded by the prescribed authority, and it is this satisfac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th or according to the intent and purpose of this Act . Quite clearly, therefore, it is indeed an inherent part o the approval being granted by the Commissioner that the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income-tax expresses his satisfaction about the reason of reopening of assessment being sufficient to issue notice under section 148 and thus initiate the reassessment process, and, in the case before us, this aspect of the matter has come to the light. Ironically, however, this aspect of the matter is not adequately highlighted and properly demonstrated, in most of the cases before the judicial forums, and that obviously is the reason that there are several judicial precedents quashing the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the approval is of the Commissioner concerned, and not of the Joint/ Additional Commissioner. All the judicial precedents filed before us fall in the category in which there is nothing on the record to demonstrate, or even suggest, that the Joint/ Additional Commissioner concerned has recorded his satisfaction that, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it is a fit case for initiating the reassessment proceedings. We have carefully perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the views that the coordinate benches have taken in the earlier cases, or to distinguish the judgments of Hon ble Courts above, but then, as complete facts having come to light, and duly evidenced, before us, we cannot knowingly perpetuate the errors in the name of reverence to binding judicial precedents. In the case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha vs. Abdulbahi Faizullbhai AIR 1976 SC 1455 Their Lordships have, in their inimitable and felicitous words observed thus, It is trite, going by anglophonic principles that a ruling of a superior Court is binding law. It is not of scriptural sanctity but of ratio-wise luminosity within the edifice of facts where the judicial lamp plays the legal flame. Beyond those walls and de hors the milieu we cannot impart eternal vernal value to the decisions, exalting the precedents into a prison house of bigotry, regardless of the varying circumstances and myriad developments. Realism dictates that a judgment has to be read, subject to the facts directly presented for consideration and not affecting the matters which may lurk in the dark . Lest we may be blamed for departing from, in the name of reverence to the judicial precedents, a judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
