INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 147

Reassessment - Validity - Neither Addl. CIT nor CIT applied his mind before according sanction under section 151(1) - There was no assessment framed under section 143(3) on the date of assumption of jurisdiction under section 147

AO based on search and seizure operation under undertaken at premises of Aseem Kumar Gupta & Group framed assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153C which had been declared as null and void. Thereafter, reopened assessment for the very same reason by issuing notice under section 148. Assessee challenged this on the ground of approval given under section 151(1) without application of mind.Held: Neither Addl. CIT nor CIT applied his mind before according sanction under section 151(1) to reopen assessment none of the authorities realized that there was no assessment framed under section 143(3) on the date of assumption of jurisdiction. The erstwhile assessment had been declared as null and void. Moreover, same reasons had been given for reopening of assessment which were used for framing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153C. Accordingly, AO had wrongly assumed jurisdiction in framing assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 without application of mind and such order deserved to be set aside.

Supported by:Raymond Woollen Mills Limited v. ITO & Ors. (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) : 1999 TaxPub(DT) 348 (SC), Clagett Brachi Company Limited v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 409 (SC) : 1989 TaxPub(DT) 1158 (SC), Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 287 (SC) : 1976 TaxPub(DT) 609 (SC), CIT v. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma [ITA No. 642/2011, dated 4-9-2017] : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4375 (Raj-HC), CIT v. Meghmani Organics Ltd. (2014) 221 Taxmann 25 (Guj.) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 2548 (Guj-HC), The CIT v. Smt. Anchi Devi (2008) 218 CTR 0011 (P&H) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1828 (P&H-HC), Fu Sheen Tannery & Anr. v. ITO & Ors. (2003) 185 CTR (Cat) 76 : (2003) 262 ITR 456 (Cal) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 1175 (Cal-HC), Asstt. CIT v. MN Rajaraman (2010) 5 ITR (TRIB) 261 (Chen) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1855 (Chen-Trib), Dy. CIT v. Jaya Publications. (2009) 123 ITD 0053 (Chen) : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 0224 (Chen-Trib) and Babulal Lath v. Asstt. CIT (2002) 83 ITD 691 (Mum) : 2002 TaxPub(DT) 318 (Mum-Trib).