COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL vs. SMT.POONAM MOOLCHANDANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA/102/2009HC Madhya PradeshMPHC01024545200906 March 20172 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that recording of satisfaction by the assessing officer is absolutely necessary before issuing a notice under Section 153-BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the provisions of Section 153-C are 'para material' with Section 158-BD, implying that the requirement of satisfaction applicable to Section 153-C would also apply to Section 158-BD. Since the satisfaction was not recorded before issuing the notice under Section 153-BD, the issuance of the notice was deemed unjustified. Consequently, interference in the matter was not called for. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that a notice under Section 153-BD cannot be issued without the assessing officer recording their satisfaction, as this is a mandatory prerequisite.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal (the revenue) against an order concerning Smt. Poonam Moolchandani (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges the validity of a notice issued under Section 153-BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The procedural history involves an application for condonation of delay, which was allowed. The core issue stems from previous identical appeals filed by the revenue that were rejected by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issuance of a notice under Section 153-BD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified without the prior recording of satisfaction by the assessing officer? (Question of law) The revenue's contention, as understood from the judgment, is that the issuance of the notice under Section 153-BD is valid. The assessee's position, implied by the Tribunal's decision, is that the notice is invalid without prior satisfaction. The Tribunal relied on its own previous decisions in identical appeals filed by the revenue, specifically citing an order dated 10.08.2015 in ITA No. 103/2009 and an order dated 10.07.2015 in ITA Nos. 44, 45, 48, 50, 53, 54 and 57 of 2011.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153-BD,Section 153-C,Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-102-2009 ( COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL Vs SMT.POONAM MOOLCHANDANI) 06-03-2017 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sapan Usrethe, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard on I.A.No.522/2016, an application for condonation of delay. The delay is condoned. Heard on the question of admission. The question involved in this appeal has already been considered and it has been held by this Court that before issuing the notice under Section 153-BD, satisfaction is to be recorded and issuance of notice without recording of satisfaction is not justified. Identical appeals filed by the revenue being I.A.No.103/2009 & I.T.A.Nos.44-45-48-50-53-54-57/2011 have already been rejected by this Court and on 10.8.2015 in I.T.A.No.103/2009, following order has been passed by a coordinate bench of this Court : "Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A.P.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. They are heard on I.A.No.10078/2014, an application for condoning the delay in filing of this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. Keeping in view the reasons indicated in the application, the same is allowed. The only question that is canvassed in this appeal by the revenue under Section 260-A is as to whether before issuing notice under section 158-BD satisfaction is to be recorded and whether issuance of the notice without recording of satisfaction is justified or not ? This question with regard to recording of satisfaction while issuing notice under Section 153-C has been considered and while holding that recording of satisfaction in a proceeding under Section 153 if is absolutely necessary, a finding has also been recorded that the provisions of Section 153-C are para material with Section 158-BD. In view of the aforesaid and looking to the order passed in appeals filed by the revenue under Section 260-A by a co-ordinate Bench of this court on 10th July, 2015 in I.T.A.Nos. 44, 45, 48, 50, 53, 54 and 57 of 2011,we hold that recording of satisfaction before issuing notice under Section 153-BD was absolutely necessary and this having not been done, the interference in the matter is not called for. Appeal stands dismissed, accordingly" Keeping in view of the aforesaid, we find no reason to take a different view in the matter. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. RAJENDRA MENON) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (SMT. ANJULI PALO) JUDGE nd

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →