9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 153A of the Act is without jurisdiction, void ab initio, illegal and deserved to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment proceedings initiated and consequently assessment order passed under section 153A of the Act by the learned AO is bad and liable to be quashed in the absence of any warrant of authorization for search under section 132 of the Act executed in the name of the assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the additions made by the AO under Section 153A are bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the course of the search. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law, confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the order passed by the AO without obtaining valid prior approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e logical end. 12. Without prejudice to the above, learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the value of the assets to the extent of Rs. 31,60,00,000/-which has been liquidated and reduced to NIL as no longer receivable would be a business loss to the assessee and eligible to be set-off against the addition made under section 68 of the Act. 13. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29-09-2013 declaring income at Rs 7,880/-. Subsequently a search and seizure operations were conducted on 29-12-2015 at the residential as well as office premises of Mapsko Group. A notice u/s 153A of the Act on 15-10-2016 issued to the assessee to file the return of income for A.Y. 2013- 14. In the response of the notice the assessee company filed his reply on 21-09-2017 requesting to treat the return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Assessing officer issued notice u/s 143(2) and u/s 142(1) of the Act. The A.O has completed the assessment by making the additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judicial precedents relied up hereinabove, we have no hesitation in holding that the approval u/s 153D of the Act has been granted the Id. JCIT in the instant case before us in a mechanical manner without due application of mind, there making the approval proceedings by a high ranking authority, an empty ritual. Such an approval has neither been mandated by the provisions of the Act nor endorsed by the decisions of the Hon'ble Orissa High Co Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (Delhi High Court) referred to sum Hence, we find lot of force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR in support of the additional ground raised for all assessment years under consideration before us for all the assessee's. Accordingly, Additional Grounds raised by all the assessee's for all the assessment years under consideration are her allowed." Further reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: -DELHI HIGH COURT in the case of PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15 VERSUS SHIV KUMAR NAYYAR, 2024 (6) TMI 29, Dated: - 15-5-2024 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VERSUS SAPNA GUPTA (2022 (12) TMI 887] [12.12.2022)- ALLAHABAD HIGH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much vs Mahadeo Real Estate, dated 17 September, 2019, AIR 2019 SC 4517, 2019 (10) SCC 738. "...................14. In the present case, the learned Judges of the Division Bench have arrived at a finding that such a sanction was, in fact, granted. We will examine the correctness of the said finding of fact at a subsequent stage. However, before doing that, we propose to examine the scope of the powers of the High Court of judicial review of an administrative action. Though, there are a catena of judgments of this Court on the said issue, the law laid down by this Court in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 lays down the basic principles which still hold the field. Paragraph 77 of the said judgment reads thus: "77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concerned should be :- 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court, it is only an obvious face of the record, as held by this Court in misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded the provision of a Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137. If statutory rule is reasonably capable of two on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of or more constructions and one construction if Certiorari 32. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. Municipal Council Neemuch vs Mahadeo Real Estate on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no adequate publicity and also a possibility of there being a cartel of bidders, would be in the public interest. We are the considered view that the decision of the Commissioner which is set aside by the High Court is undoubtedly in larger public commissioner would ensure that the Municipal Council earns a higher revenue by enlarging the scope of the competition. By no stretch of imagination, the decision of the State Government or the Commissioner could be termed as illegal, improper, unreasonable or irrational, Which parameters only could have permitted the High Court to interfere. Interference by the High Court when none of such parameters exist, in our view, was totally improper. On the contrary, we find that it is the High Court, which has failed to take into consideration relevant material. 26. In the result, the impugned Orders are not sustainable in law. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned orders dated 31.08.2017 and 05.07.2018 are quashed and set aside. The petition of respondent No. 1 stands dismissed. (ii) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal Central School Service... vs Abdul Halim dated 24 July, 2019, AIR 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
