TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd. We fail to understand the need to grant online approval at 2.55 p.m. if physical approval was already granted before 2.40 p.m. In the absence of valid explanation by cogent material, we cannot accept explanation by Respondent No.1 in the order of disposing of objections that physical approval was granted before issuance of notice u/s 148. There is complete non application of mind on the part of Joint CIT, Range 5(3), Mumbai, while granting sanction under section 151 of Act. There is no prior sanction granted by Respondent No.2 before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the jurisdictional condition of complying with Section 151 was not satisfied, resulting in Respondent No.1 committing the error of jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prior approval as contemplated under Section 151 of the Act, only those facts essential for adjudication of the said issue are stated hereinafter. 4. The Petitioner is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It provides tailor-made marine services to LNG terminals, ports, and oil gas terminals around the world. 5. On 31/03/2019, Respondent No.1 uploaded a notice under Section 148 of the Act and reasons for reopening the assessment on the ITBA portal, informing that the assessment for AY 2014-15 has been reopened and requested the Petitioner to file a return of income for that year. The notice was uploaded at 2.40 p.m. on 31/03/2019 on the portal under the digital signature of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 furnished a copy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. 9. Mr. Nishant Thakkar, learned Counsel for Petitioner, inter alia, submitted that Respondent No.1 has committed an error of jurisdiction by passing the re-assessment order without there being valid sanction as contemplated under Section 151 of the Act. He submitted that prior approval under Section 151 of the Act is mandatory. From the copy received by the Petitioner, it is clear that the notice was issued at 2.40 p.m. and sanction under Section 148 was granted at 2.55 p.m. He submitted that Respondent No.1 was not justified in observing while disposing of the objections that the approval of competent authority was taken physically. After that, approval was granted online. He submitted that the proceedings under Section 148 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. The expression No notice shall be issued reflects the intention of the legislature to indicate that prior approval is the sine qua non before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The purpose of insertion of expression No notice shall be issued ' before issuing a notice of re-assessment is to avoid harassment to taxpayers and the arbitrary exercise of the power to reopen the assessment. It is introduced as an in-built safeguard by the legislature. Therefore, we have no doubt in holding that sanction to be granted by the authority under Section 151 has to be prior in point of time of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. 13. In the facts of the present case, it is clear from the digital signature on the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the following principles are laid down : The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format Yes, I am satisfied which indicates as if he was to sign only on the dotted line. Even otherwise also, the exercise is shown to have been performed in less than 24 hours of time which also goes to indicate that the Commissioner did not apply his mind at all while granting sanction. The satisfaction has to be with objectivity on objective material. 15. The Apex Court, in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal Vs. S. P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC), held as under : .. We are also of the opinion that the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
