TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Section 143(3) of the Act. In form 151, the amount mentioned as income originally assessed is ₹ 6,01,66,964/-, whereas income originally assessed was ₹ 11,11,34,621/-. We are also of the opinion that the Additional CIT and Principal CIT, viz., Mr. Ashish V. Pophare and Ms. Irina Garg, have mechanically accorded permission. We are of the opinion that even if only these two officials had read the report carefully alongwith the reasons recorded, this admitted error would not have crept in. The important safeguards provided in Sections 147 and 151 were lightly treated by the Officers This Court in German Remedies Limited V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. [ 2005 (10) TMI 76 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that while g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-opening but according to him these are bonafide mistakes. Mr. Yadav has no personal knowledge. Mr. Yadav is not the person who either filled up the Form for re-opening or the Additional CIT who recommended or the Principal CIT who granted the approval. Hence, we are not inclined to and do not accept the explanation of Mr. Yadav. The three persons, i.e., one Mr. Trilochan Singh Khalsa who was DCIT at that time or Mr. Ashok Pophare, Additional CIT who recommended the issuance of approval and Ms. Irina Garg who was the Principal CIT who granted the approval should have filed the affidavit and not some third party who was not at all involved at the relevant time. 2. Since it is the issue of revenue of the State (the question of inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the replies to queries in Cols.8 and 9 are inadvertent and bonafide mistakes. The bonafide nature of the mistake is apparent from the fact that the query in Col.7 Whether the assessment is proposed to be made for the first time has been answered as No and in the first paragraph itself of the reasons recorded details of return filed have been correctly mentioned. This shows that the undersigned and the competent authority were well aware that a return of income was filed earlier. 6. It is submitted that the answer to Col.8(a) should have been Yes and no information was required to be filled in Col.9. Barring this inadvertent mistake, all other information in the Form and reasons is correct. It is, therefore, requested that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asons recorded by the AO, wherein there was application of mind. However, if there is any procedural error/mistake in filling of the Form by the AO, the same may kindly be treated as inadvertent because no such lapse occurred on the electronic filing of the proposal. 6. I tender unconditional apology to this Hon ble High Court for inadvertent bonafide mistake. 4. Therefore, respondents admit that the sanction granted under Section 151 of the Act was on the basis of incorrect information provided to them. At the same time, if Mr. Ashish Pophare and Ms. Irina Garg had read the reasons submitted alongwith the form, they would have certainly found out the error. We have to also note that in the reasons for reopening, there is no menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances, the notice dated 31st March 2019 issued under Section 148 of the Act is required to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. Petition accordingly disposed. WRIT PETITION NO.3181 OF 2019 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3615 OF 2019 8. Mr. Gandhi states that in these two petitions also the facts are almost identical to Writ Petition No.3023 of 2019 and we say almost identical because the figures ofcourse vary. Since we have allowed Writ Petition No.3023 of 2019, these two petitions are also allowed. 9. Both petitions disposed accordingly. 10. Mr. Suresh Kumar states that liberty be given to issue fresh notice under Section 148 of the Act. 11. If permissible in law, nothing can come in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
