BRIJESH KUMAR,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 1(2), NOIDA
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A.YR. : 2010-11
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM :
The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld.
CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 21.05.2024, relating to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) imposing an addition of Rs. 13,03,400/- is arbitrary, bad in law and liable to be quashed.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in failing to condone the delay in filing of appeal, and thereby dismissing the appeal on limitation despite reasonable cause for delay contrary to the principles of substantial justice.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has 2 | P a g e solely placed reliance on. the AIR information devoid of any independent application mind vide borrowed satisfaction which renders the income escaping assessment proceedings void-ab-initio.
4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the approval accorded by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 151 of the Act is mechanical in nature, thereby rendering the income escaping assessment proceedings non-est in the eyes of law.
5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the verification letters issued u/s 133(6) are legally invalid in the absence of mandatory approval of the competent authority and therefore, the reasons to believe are legally deficient which shall vitiate the income escaping assessment proceedings.
6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has failed to consider the corresponding cash withdraws in the bank account statement while imposing the addition base< upon cherry picking of credit entries on account of cash deposits for the relevant assessment year which has resulted in an erroneous addition liable to be quashed.
The Appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify or vary any of the grounds of appeal at an time during the pendency of the appeal or at the time of hearing.
Brief facts of the case are that in this case AO made addition u/s. 147/144 of the Act for an amount of Rs. 13,03,400/- for cash deposit during the period 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 in savings bank account. Assessee was asked to give the details, but assessee did not provide the same, hence, the AO made the impugned addition. 3. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) noted that there is delay of 30 days in filing the appeal, hence he dismissed the appeal for being time barred. 4. Against the aforesaid order, Assessee is in appeal before me. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee assailed the permission granted by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax. He submitted that the permission has been granted in the following manner:-
3 | P a g e
Ld. AR further submitted that there is no application of mind while granting the permission by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax. He further submitted that on identical facts and circumstances, the ITAT, Delhi SMC
4 | P a g e
Bench in the case of Shri Kadir Ahmed vs. ITO (ITA no. 418/Del/2020 – AY
2010-11) vide order dated 4.10.2022 has quashed the assessment on account of lack of approval. Furthermore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following case laws for the proposition that recording of satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice u/s. 148 for reopening was invalid.
- CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com
313 (SC) dated 08.07.2015. - CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. [2015’ 56 taxmann.com
390 (MP) dated 14.10.2014. - PCIT vs. Pioneer Town Planners (P) Ltd. [2024] 160 Taxmann.com
652 (Delhi) dated 20.2.2024. - Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. vs. CIT (2003) 131 Taxman 833 (Mad.) dated 01.10.2001. - Udesh Sharma vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Ghaziabad (ITA no.
7579/Del/2017) dated 29.3.2022 of the Delhi Tribunal.
- Shri Kadir Ahmed vs. ITO dated 4.10.2022 in ITA No. 418/Del/2020
of the Delhi Tribunal, SMC Bench.
- Shri Birpal vs. ITO [ITA No. 8849/Del/2019) dated 20.11.2024 of ITAT, Delhi ‘A’ Bench.
6. I find that the instant issue emanating from the aforesaid case laws is squarely applicable in the present case, as the approval granted is mechanical and does not reflect any application of mind, hence, I quash the reopening of the assessment made by the AO and accordingly, allow the appeal of the assessee on this very issue.
7. Since I have already quashed the reopening of the assessment, the other grounds have become academic and hence, need not be adjudicated.
5 | P a g e
In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20/02/2025. SRBHATNAGAR