TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act. In fact, in the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has clearly stated that he has obtained approval/sanction from the Commissioner of Income Tax. It is a well settled legal principle that when a statutory provision requires a certain act to be done by a particular authority in a particular manner, it should be done by that authority in that manner only. Any other authority, be it higher or inferior, cannot substitute the authority prescribed under the statute. The legal principle on this aspect is very much clear and leaves no room for doubt. Merely because the approval/sanction is granted by a superior authority, it will not make the proceeding valid. Though, there are host of other decisions laying down the same legal principle, however, for avoiding multiplicity, we desist from discussing all the case laws. Thus, considering the fact that sanction/approval for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act has not been granted by the prescribed authority in terms with section 151(2) of the Act, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act has to be declared as invalid. As a natural corollary, assessment order passed, in pursuance thereof, is also invalid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such information received from the Investigation Wing, the assessing Officer formed belief that income to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- has escaped assessment. Accordingly, he reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act. Though, the assessee objected to the reopening of assessment, however, rejecting the objection of the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment vide order dated 26.12.2011 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 6. The assessment order so passed was challenged in appeal before learned first appellate authority, inter alia, on the ground that the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act is invalid. However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not find merit in any of the grounds raised by the assessee. Accordingly, appeal was dismissed. 7. Before us, the substantive submission made by learned counsel for the assessee while challenging the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act as well as the assessment order passed under the said provision is to the effect that the approval for reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act was not granted by the competent a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16. Hon'ble ITAT Delhi, ITA no. 2534/Del/2018 dated 10.08.2018 Priyatam Plaschem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 8. Learned Departmental Representative, though agreed that sanction for issuance of notice in terms with section 151 has been granted by the CIT, however, he submitted, since superior authority has granted sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, it cannot be said to be invalid. 9. We have considered rival submissions in the light of the decisions relied upon and perused the materials on record. The facts on record clearly reveal that the original return of income filed by the assessee was not subjected to scrutiny assessment but was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. In other words, before initiation of proceeding under section 147 of the Act for the impugned assessment year, no assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was made. Section 151 of the Act prescribes the authority who can grant sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. On a reading of section 151 of the Act applicable to the impugned assessment year, it has to be noted that as per subsection (1) of section 151 of the Act, in a case, where assessment unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional High Court in case of Yum! Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. Vs. DDIT Ors., 2017-TIOL-1784-HC-DEL-IT. The relevant observations of the Hon ble Delhi High Court (supra) read as under: 5. The relevant file has been produced before the Court. There is a single note sheet in the file and it is dated 26th March 2012. The note prepared by Mr. Mazhar Akram, the AO, reads: No records for AY 2005-06 are traceable. ITD is showing the ROI processed for AY 2005- 06. In the light of the reasons recorded in Annexure A, approval for issue of notice u/s Section 148 of IT Act, 1961 is sought. The said note was put up to the Addl. DIT who recorded put up for approval with his signature and put up the file to the DIT. The next signature on the file is that of the DIT who states in a single word Approved . 6. From the above noting on the file it is seen that the Addl. DIT merely put up for approval the file and did not himself accord approval of the AO's proposal for reopening the assessment for AY 2005-06. 7. It is contended by Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Department, that when the Addl. DIT recorded the words put up for approval he, in fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Additional CIT did not apply his mind or gave any sanction. Instead, he requested Commissioner to accord the approval. It, thus, cannot be said that it is an irregularity curable under Section 292B of the Act. 10. In Commissioner of Income Tax-8 v. Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd. (supra), the Court explained: 8. The Revenue's argument seems plausible and even logical because the Commissioner or a Chief Commissioner is unarguably ranked higher in authority than a Joint Commissioner. Yet at the same time, this Court has to give effect to plain words of the statute which unambiguously states that the competent authority in such cases is the Joint Commissioner (and not the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner). The Revenue's submissions that all such cases, are covered under proviso to Section 147(1), the competent authority for prior approval would be four superior officers, renders Section 151 (2) superfluous. If anything the Court is clear that it is not its job to render, in the process of interpretation, an entire provision academic or Certified True Copy inoperative. This court is of the opinion that accepting the Revenue's position woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
