TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of the relevant assessment year, then, the said obligation is shifted on a superior officer as therein contemplated. In our considered view, as the reopening of a case results to disturbing the finality of a concluded assessment, therefore, the authorities specified for granting of approval u/s. 151 of the Act remain under a statutory obligation of clearly applying their mind on the reasons to believe recorded by the AO and, only after being satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, approve the same. In our considered view, mere scribbling of Yes by the approving authority, as is the case before us, can by no means suffice the statutory obligation cast upon him for granting approval after due application of mind for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act by the AO, as the said statutory check would otherwise be rendered as a mere idle formality, nugatory or in fact nothing better than an eye wash, which would beyond any doubt defeat the very purpose for which the said supervisory jurisdiction of the superior authorities had been made available on the statute by the legislature. Our aforesaid conviction is supported by the order of this Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nda erred on facts and law in sustaining the addition of ₹ 63,33,000/- which had been made by the AO for not explaining the source of cash deposited in the bank although it had been explained that the cash deposited in the saving fund account belonged to Sh. Baljinder Singh. The explanation filed during the course of assessment proceedings has been rejected without rebutting the same. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed of. 2. Briefly stated, on the basis of information received by the A.O that the assessee during the year under consideration had deposited ₹ 98.33 lac in his bank account with Punjab Sind Bank, Village : Goniana, the A.O reopened his case u/s. 147 of the Act. In compliance to the Notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y 2009-10 on 15.11.2016, declaring an income of ₹ 1,03,464/- a/w agriculture income of ₹ 50,000/-. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee on being queried as regards the source of the aforesaid cash deposit of ₹ 98.33 lac (supra) in his bank account, submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings declined to furnish copies of the sale deeds a/w his bank a/c, and the same despite specific requests of the assessee before the A.O were not made available to him, therefore, the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from producing/filing the said documents which have a strong bearing on the adjudication of the issues involved in the present appeal in the course of the proceedings before the lower authorities. Backed by his aforesaid claim, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the said documents in all fairness and interest of justice be admitted. Apart from that, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction for reopening the case of the assessee u/s. 147 of the Act. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the ld. AR, that the reopening of the assessee's case suffers from certain serious jurisdictional defects, viz. (i). that the AO had framed the impugned assessment u/ss. 143(3)/147, dated 19.12.2016 without validly effecting service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act upon the assessee; (ii). that the AO had gravely erred in not obtaining the approval from the appropriate authority as contemplate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the sanctioning authority, i.e., the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax was at Column 13 of the form of approval only required to state as to whether he was satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for the issue of notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, therefore, by stating Yes he had duly expressed that he was satisfied with the same. It was submitted by the ld. DR that as the AO had validly assumed jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act, therefore, no infirmity did emerge from the order passed by him u/ss. 143(3)/147 of the Act, dated 19.12.2016. 7. We have heard the ld. Authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. As the assessee has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the A.O for reopening of his case u/s. 147 of the Act, therefore, we shall first deal with the same. On a perusal of the records, we find substantial fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorities specified for granting of approval u/s. 151 of the Act remain under a statutory obligation of clearly applying their mind on the reasons to believe recorded by the AO and, only after being satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, approve the same. In fact, the approving authority in discharge of his aforesaid statutory duty is obligated to record his satisfaction as regards the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the case of the assessee, in a manner, which would reveal that as per him it is a fit case for issuance of Notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In our considered view, mere scribbling of Yes by the approving authority, as is the case before us, can by no means suffice the statutory obligation cast upon him for granting approval after due application of mind for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act by the AO, as the said statutory check would otherwise be rendered as a mere idle formality, nugatory or in fact nothing better than an eye wash, which would beyond any doubt defeat the very purpose for which the said supervisory jurisdiction of the superior authorities had been made available on the statute by the legislature. O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 147/148 of the Act and for obtaining the approval of the Ld. JCIT, it has been mentioned in column no. 11 as under: Yes it is approved for 148 action Sd/- (Umesh Takyar) Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1, Jalandhar From the aforesaid approval it is clear that the JCIT, Range-1, Jalandhar recorded the satisfaction in a mechanical manner without application of mind. He accorded the sanction for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act in a mechanical manner. 14.1 On a similar issue the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Ladhuram Laxmi narayan Vs. ITO, Additional 102 ITR 595 (supra) held as under: 22. Sub-section (2) of Section 151 requires that before issuing a notice under Section 148, the Commissioner must be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. The submission of the learned counsel is that in the instant case there was no real satisfaction of the Commissioner or in other words there could not be satisfaction of the Commissioner as contemplated under Sub-section (2) in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the column of the report whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Karnal 14.2 From the aforesaid approval, it is clear that the Ld. Pr. CIT recorded satisfaction in the mechanical manner, without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. On an identical issue the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Jabalpur Vs. S. Goyanka Lime Chemical Ltd. reported at (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 390 by following its own decision in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. ADIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (M.P) held as under: 7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so Yes, I am satisfied . In the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:- The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge is statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format Yes, 1 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds raised by the assessee on merit. 13.1 Since the facts of the present case are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to case of Shri Satnam Singh, Jalandhar Vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jalandhar in ITA No. 579/ASR/2019 for the A.Y. 2013-14, so respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dt. 29/06/2021 the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act by issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act is quashed. Since we have decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee therefore no finding is given on the other grounds raised by the assessee on merit. Also, we find that a similar view had been taken by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Shri. Tek Chand Vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Karnal, ITA No. 255/Chd/2020, dated 15.03.2021. In the said case the approving authority, i.e., Principal CIT, Karnal had granted the approval for issuance of notice u/s. 147 of the Act, as under:- Yes, satisfied, it is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 -Sd/- Pr. CIT, Karnal The Tribunal by drawing support from the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime Chemi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
