MAHENDRA SISODIA SON OF SHRI KAJOR MAL SISODIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/15336/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02074067202329 September 2023Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner's argument was misconceived in law and fact. The court found that the PCIT had applied its mind to the case and granted approval, which is the essential requirement under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The presence of remarks from the Joint Commissioner in the file, while the file was routed through the JCIT, did not invalidate the PCIT's approval. The court reasoned that the JCIT's remarks were merely to facilitate the PCIT's decision-making process and did not usurp the PCIT's jurisdiction. Since the competent authority (PCIT) applied its mind and granted approval based on the available material, no case was made out for interference. The writ petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahendra Sisodia, filed a writ petition challenging the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) to a notice. The petitioner argued that the approval process was flawed because the file was routed through the Joint Commissioner (JCIT) before reaching the PCIT. The petitioner contended that this procedural deviation violated the principle that actions must be performed in the manner prescribed by law. The record showed that the Assessing Authority forwarded the case for PCIT approval, and the file was indeed routed through the JCIT with comments before being placed before the PCIT, who then applied its mind and granted approval. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mahendra Singh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the routing of the approval file through the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, before it reached the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for granting approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vitiates the approval granted? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the approval process was impermissible as the file should have been directly placed before the PCIT, and routing it through the JCIT violated the principle that a statutory requirement must be followed strictly as prescribed. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mahendra Singh. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not explicitly record its contentions in the judgment. However, the court's reasoning implies a rebuttal to the petitioner's argument.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2023:RJ-JP:25798-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15336/2023 Mahendra Sisodia Son of Shri Kajor Mal Sisodia, aged about 41 Years, resident of 1, Tiwarion Ka Mohalla, Reengus, Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward, Neem Ka Thana, Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, Chhawani Road, Khetri Mode, Godawas Road, Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan 332713 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), represented through its Chairman having office at Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110011 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order 29/09/2023 Heard. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of approval of PCIT on the submission that the PCIT though has granted approval, the file could not have been routed through the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. He submits that the processing of the file of the case of approval through JCIT to the JCIT is not permissible as it violates the principle that where the statue provides for a thing to be done in particular manner, that has to be done in that manner and no other manner. He places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

[2023:RJ-JP:25798-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-15336/2023] Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mahendra Singh; Civil Appeal No.4807 of 2022, decided on 25.07.2022. The record which has been placed itself shows that the concerned Assessing Authority forwarded the case of the petitioner for grant of approval of the PCIT-2 Jaipur. The note sheets which have been obtained and placed on record also shows that the Assessing Authority forwarded the proposal which was routed through the Joint Commissioner with his comments. However, it is more than clear from the note sheets itself that the record were placed before the competent authority i.e. PCIT -2, Jaipur who applied its mind and granted approval in terms of requirement of law as provided in Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case of approval should have been directly placed before the PCIT and there was no legal requirement of obtaining remarks of Joint Commissioner. The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is completely misconceived in law as well as on fact. Present is not a case where the competent authority has not at all applied its mind and has granted approval. Merely because the file relating to approval contains a remark by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, does not in any manner result in wrongful exercise of jurisdiction by the PCIT as long as PCIT applied its own mind on the basis of material available on record. Remarks of the JCIT are only to facilitate PCIT to apply its mind. In view of the details order of PCIT applying its mind and then granting approval, no case is made out for interference.

[2023:RJ-JP:25798-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-15336/2023] Accordingly, this Civil Writ Petition is dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J 15-/DHARMENDRA RAKHECHA

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →