The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 8463 (Del-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 147

Where Addl. CIT had granted the approval for issuing notice under section 148 in a mechanical manner by mentioning “I am satisfied that this is a fit case for reopening under section 147.”, then that approval was not valid for initiating the reassessment proceedings and was not in accordance with section 151 as it clearly indicates non-application of mind. Thus, the notice issued under section 148 was invalid and accordingly, the reopening was bad in law and therefore, the same was quashed.

Reassessment - Validity - Approval granted by Addl. CIT under section 151 in a mechanical and without application of mind -

Assessee argued that AO had erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 147/148 on the basis of invalid and mechanical approval granted by Addl. CIT, wherein it had not recorded proper satisfaction. Revenue contended that the reasons recorded and satisfaction/approval accorded was within the meaning of section 151 and need not to be quashed. Held: Addl. CIT had granted the approval in a mechanical manner and without application of mind as while issuing notice under section 148 he had mentioned “I am satisfied that this is a fit case for reopening under section 147.” Therefore, said approval was not valid for initiating the reassessment proceedings, because from the aforesaid remarks, it was not coming out as to which material; information; documents and which other aspects had been gone through and examined by Addl. CIT for reaching to the satisfaction for granting approval. Thus, the notice issued under section 148 was invalid and accordingly, the reopening was bad in law and therefore, the same was quashed.

Followed:M/s Tara Alloys Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 063 ITR (Trib) 0484 (Del) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2267 (Del-Trib),United Electrical Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT & Ors. (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del.) : 2002 TaxPub(DT) 1670 (Del-HC), CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 5456 (SC), CIT v. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (2015) 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 4342 (MP-HC)

REFERRED : GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO & Ors. (2002) 125 Taxman 963 (SC) : 2003 TaxPub(DT) 0734 (SC),Raymond Woollen Mills Limited v. ITO & Ors. (1999) 236 ITR 341 (SC) : 1999 TaxPub(DT) 0348 (SC),Sonia Gandhi v. ACIT (2018) 97 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5844 (Del-HC),Baldevbhai Bhikhabhai Patel v. DCIT (2018) 94 Taxmann.co, 428 (Gujarat) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2838 (Guj-HC),Amit Polyprints (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 94 taxmann.com 393 (Gujarat) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6782 (Guj-HC),Rakesh Gupta v. CIT & Anr. (2018) 93 taxmann.com 271 (Punjab & Haryana) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2542 (P&H-HC),Ankit Agrochem (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT (2018) 89 taxmann.com 45 (Rajasthan) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0186 (Raj-HC),Aaspas Multimedia Limited v. DCIT [2017] 83 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1665 (Guj-HC),PCIT v. Paramount Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi) : (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0794 (Del-HC),Devi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO & Anr. 2017-TIQL-92-HC-MUM- IT : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 0285 (Guj-HC),Murlibhai Fatandas Sawlani v. ITO 2016-TIQL-370-HC- AHM-IT, Acorus Unitech Wireless Private Limited v. ACIT (2014) 43 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi) : (2014) 223 Taxman 181 (Delhi)(MAG) : (2014) 362 ITR 417 (Delhi) : 2014 TaxPub(DT) 1400 (Del-HC) ,Yuvraj v. UOI & Anr. (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bombay) : (2009) 225 CTR 283 (Bombay) : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1704 (Bom-HC), M/s Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 94 taxmann.com 84 (SC) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 3182 (SC), and Paramount Communications Ltd. v. PCIT 2017-TIQL-253- SC-IT : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4022 (SC)

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT