TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n application of mind to the material placed by the AO before the approving authority which could lead to a valid and meaning full approval. Therefore notice u/s. 148 of the Act without obtaining valid approval u/s. 151 of the Act and all consequent reassessment and first appellate order are not validly sustainable and deserve to be quashed - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1942/Del/2020 - - - Dated:- 26-5-2023 - SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee : Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. Ms. Mansi Jain, CA For the Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J. M. This appeal has been filed against the order of CIT(A) Delhi dated 24.02.2020 for AY 2010-11. 2. I have arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same has been reopened on the basis of reasons which are vague and against the facts on record. He also submitted that even at the time of recording reason and issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was not about the actual character of the transaction as to whether it was unsecured loans, advance or share application money which shows non-application of mind by the law. The learned counsel also submitted that the Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, without obtaining valid approval from the competent authority as per requirement of section 151 of the Act. Drawing our attention towards page 7 of assessee paper book and placing reliance on the judgement of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that at the time of recording reasons and issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act the Assessing Officer was not sure about the character or mode allege transaction which again shows non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer the learned AR also contended that thereafter the Assessing Officer, without assigning any findings or basis to the reason to believe, directly jumped to the conclusion that the assessee has concealed particulars of mentioned financial transactions pertaining to AY 2010-11 this again shows non-application of mind and initiation of reassessment proceeding on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. Therefore the ld. AR submitted that the reasons are vague and have been recorded without application of mind and therefore it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer on 30.03.2017 I note that in the entire first page the Assessing Officer has recorded modus operandi adopted by the entry providers. In the second page top para the Assessing Officer noted that the ITR for AY 2010-11 does not exist in the ward whereas the copy of objection of assessee vide dated 28.04.2017 (copy at pages 3 4) clearly reveals the assessee at the first instance inform the Assessing Officer about filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 17.07.2010 vide acknowledgement no. xx70710 this shows non application mind by the Assessing Officer. 7. Further, the AO in last para, without applying mind to the information received from the Investigation Wing states/writes that he has reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said to be tangible material per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis was not justified. In the case of Meenakshi Overseas (supra), their lordship speaking for the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that where the reasons recorded by the AO failed to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment then, indeed it is a borrowed satisfaction and the conclusion of the Assessing Officer has been based on reproduction of conclusion drawn in the investigation report cannot be held as valid reason to believe after application of mind. In this judgment their lordship also held that where nothing from the report of investigation wing is set out to enable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9; says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner. In the present case, the exercise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher-ranking officer, For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the findings by the ITAT cannot be disturbed. 10. Respectfully following the proposing rendered by Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s NC Cable Ltd. (supra) I have no hesitation to hold that in the present case also the exercise of approving powers u/s. 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
