ARUN DUGGAL,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, FARIDABAD

Ground of appeal Nos. 1.2, 1.8 and 5 which were remained undecided in terms of the order of Tribunal order dated 04.01.2022, for which the case of the assessee is recalled, are as under:- 1.2. “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. Ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that no back material, repeatedly asked was confronted / provided to assessee thus invalidating entire reopening; 1.8 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO u/s 147/143 * (3) without appreciating that the mechanical and rubber stamp approval has been given by the Pr CIT, Faridabad-121001. 5. The on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the orders passed by the Ld AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that the no addition u/s 68 can be made merely relying upon the bank statements, which was never books of accounts of the assessee.”

Before us, Ld.AR for the assessee filed a written submission wherein he first pressed Ground of Appeal No.1.8, challenging the re- opening of assessment on the basis of mechanical approval granted u/s 151 of the Act. Ld. AR submits that sanction given by Ld. Pr. CIT dated 31.03.2016 was mechanical and given without applying his mind, wherein Ld. Pr. CIT observed that “I am satisfied”. According to Ld.AR, this approval is mechanical and without application of mind and ritualistic. He placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 469 ITR 46 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 73 of the order has make a reference with regard to the sanction for re-opening. Besides this, he placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Juri ictional High (Delhi) and other judgements which are extracted here under for ready-reference:- (i) Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) & Anr. Vs State of Maharshtra & Ors. 2025 INSC 801;

On the other hand, Ld.CIT DR for the Revenue supports the orders of lower authorities and submits that the Ld. Pr. CIT has granted approval on the basis of material available before him. Therefore, there is no question that no independent application of mind on the part of Ld. Pr. CIT who after appreciating each and every aspect of granting approval. Therefore, he prayed that the approval being valid deserves to be upheld.

Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. This issue is emerged out of the approval granted by Ld. Pr. CIT in prescribed Performa which is available in paper Book and is reproduced as under:-

It is seen that in aforesaid from, in Column 12, Ld. Pr. CIT has simply stated “I am satisfied” and put his signature without referring to the material which has been referred and discussed before granting the approval.

In the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. – (2014) 246 ITR 363(MP) , the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that approval granted by simply observing “I am satisfied” is not proper approval and such observations of the Hon’ble High Court were challenged by the Revenue before Hon’ble Supreme Court who upheld the finding of Hon’ble MP High Court and dismissed the SLP filed by the Revenue in the case of CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (2015) 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC).

The relevant findings of hon’ble MP high Court are as under: “ Section 151, read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act,1961 - Income escaping assessment - Sanction for issue of notice (Recording of satisfaction) - High Court by impugned order held that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under. section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case cited as SABH Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT in WP (C) 1357/2016 order dated 25.09.2017 has issued guidelines to the Revenue authorities while granting the approval before issue of notice for reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act. Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs N.C. Cables Ltd. (supra) has observed as under:-

Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Saraswat Co- operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT & Others [2025] 473 ITR 205 (Bom.) has held as under:- Sanction mechanism under section 151 21. Evidently, the reassessment was first proposed internally on March 24, 2021 by the juri ictional Assessing Officer, and was recommended by a Range Officer on March 25, 2021, and approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax on the same day all under section 151 of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment has been contemplated and initiated one year after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year d (2015-16). Therefore, failure by the petitioner to disclose material facts was a juri ictional imperative, which was simply incapable of being discerned from the material on record. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the Revenue's bid to initiate reassessment is unfounded and in direct conflict with section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the sanction for reassessment under section 151 could simply not have been given. 22. The requirement for sanction by a high-ranking official under section 151, is an inherent check and balance in the statutory scheme of the Act. Such officers are expected to apply their mind to the facts and the applicable law and then accord sanction. In the instant case, the proposed reassessment was sanctioned by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, with the following remarks: "Yes, I am satisfied with the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." (emphasis¹ supplied) 23. The power to sanction reassessment under section 151, is coupled with a duty to exercise such power reasonably, and not arbitrarily. It is trite law that absence of valid reasons constitutes arbitrariness. In the instant case, the entire process of according sanction demonstrates non-application of mind to the ingredients of section 147, rendering the sanction to be h arbitrary, calling for intervention by a writ court. Evidently, the proposal, the recommendation and the approval in the instant case was mechanical, without either application of mind to the law and the facts or even a modi-cum of how the ingredients of the law had been met. In short, the machinery under section 151 completely failed. 24. The imperative requirement of compliance with the ingredients of section 147 and section 148 is underlined in innumerable judgments. How-ever, we note with respect and approval, a judgment of a Division Bench of this court cited on behalf of the petitioner, in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R. B. Wadkar (per V. C. Daga and J. P. Devadhar JJ.), and profitably extract the following (page 337 of 268 ITR): "Reading of the proviso to section 147 makes it clear that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceeding under section 147, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the concerned assessment year. However, where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action can be taken under section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reasons of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. In the case in hand it is not in dispute that the assessment year involved is 1996-97. The last date of the said assessment year was March 31, 1997 and from that date if four years are counted, the period of four years expired on March 31, 2001. The notice issued is dated November 5, 2002 and received by the assessee on November 7, 2002. Under these circumstances, the notice is clearly beyond the period of four years. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere state that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year. It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No additions can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded. It is for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his mind through reasons recorded by him. He has to speak through his reasons. It is for the Assessing Officer to reach to the conclusion as to whether there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the concerned assessment year. It is for the Assessing Officer to form his opinion. It is for him to put his opinion on record in black and white. The reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. The reasons recorded must disclose his mind. Reasons are the manifestation of mind of the Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded should be self-explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing for the reasons. Reasons provide link between conclusion and evidence. The reasons recorded must be based on evidence. The Assessing Officer, in the event of challenge to the reasons must be able to justify the same based on material available on record. He must disclose in the reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly necessary for assessment of that assessment year, so as to establish vital link between the reasons and evidence. That vital link is the safeguard against arbitrary reopening of the concluded assessment. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer cannot be supplemented by filing affidavit or making oral submission, otherwise, the reasons which were lacking in the material particulars would get supplemented, by the time the matter reaches to the court, on the strength of the affidavit or oral submissions advanced. Having recorded our finding that the impugned notice itself is beyond the period of four years from the end of the assessment year 1996-97 and does not comply with the requirements of the proviso to section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer had no juri iction to reopen the assessment proceedings which were concluded on the basis of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. On this short count alone the impugned notice is liable to be quashed and set aside." (emphasis¹ supplied) 25. Having regard to the foregoing and in view of the findings returned by us, the writ petition deserves to be allowed in the following terms: "(A) The order dated March 25, 2021 sanctioning the reassessment under section 151 of the Act; the impugned notice dated March 30, 2021 issued under section 148 of the Act; the impugned order dated February 25, 2022 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner are declared to be arbitrary and devoid of valid reasons and, therefore, illegal; (B) Consequently, the order dated March 25, 2021 sanctioning the reassessment under section 151 of the Act; the impugned notice dated March 30, 2021 issued under section 148 of the Act; the impugned order dated February 25, 2022 and all consequential proceedings in respect of the reassessment are hereby quashed and set aside." 26. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.”

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SBC Minerals Pvt.Ltd. vs ACIT [2025] 475 ITR 360 (Del.) has held as under:- 10. “Before considering the merits of the contentions of the parties, it would be apposite to examine the relevant legal framework. 11. Section 151 of the Act, as it stood prior to the substitution by Act 13 of 2001 is reproduced hereunder: "151. Sanction for issue of notice.-(1) No notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2) In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (3) For the purposes of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the g Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself." 12. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that the prescribed authority must be "satisfied", on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer ("AO"), that it is a fit case for the issuance of such notice. Thus, the satisfaction of the prescribed authority is a sine qua non for a valid approval. 13. It is trite law that the grant of approval is neither an empty formality nor a mechanical exercise. The competent authority must apply its mind independently on the basis of material placed before it before grant of sanction. 14. A perusal of the record reveals that the request for approval under section 151 of the Act in a printed format was placed before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax ("PCCIT") on March 20, 2023. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax granted the approval the same day. The approval accorded by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax in column 22 is extracted below:

It is evident that the approval order is bereft of any reasons. It does not even refer to any material that may have weighed in the grant of approval. The mere appending of the word "approved" by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax while granting approval under section 151 to the reopening under section 148 is not enough. While the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax is not required to record elaborate reasons, he has to record satisfaction after application of mind. The approval is f a safeguard and has to be meaningful and not merely ritualistic or formal. The reasons are the link between material placed on record and the conclusion reached by the authority in respect of an issue, since they help in discerning the manner in which the conclusion is reached by the concerned authority. Our opinion in this regard is fortified by the decision of the apex court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor. The grant of approval by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax in the printed format without any line of reason does not fulfil the requirement of section 151 of the Act. 16. We note that dealing with an identical challenge of approval having been accorded mechanically and without due application of mind had arisen for our consideration in the case of the Pr. CIT v. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., wherein, we had held as follows (page 361 of 465 ITR): "13. The primary grievance raised in the instant appeal relates to the manner of recording the approval granted by the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act for reopening of assessment proceedings as per section 148 of the Act. 17. Thus, the incidental question which emanates at this juncture is whether simply penning down 'Yes' would suffice requisite satisfaction as per section 151 of the Act. Reference can be drawn from the decision of this court in Pr. CIT v. N. C. Cables Ltd.¹, wherein, the usage of the expression 'approved was considered to be merely ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as under (page 17 of 391 ITR): '11. Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who is the competent authority to authorise the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression "approved" says nothing. It is not as if the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner. In the present case, the exercise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking officer. For these reasons, the court is satisfied that the findings by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be disturbed.' 18. Further, this court in the case of Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. ITO has taken a view that merely rubber stamping of 'Yes' would suggest that the decision was taken in a mechanical manner. Paragraph 19 of the said decision is reproduced as under (page 245 of 333 ITR): 'In respect of the first plea, if the judgments in Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha, Chanchal Kumar Chatterjee v. ITO and Govinda Choudhury and Sons v. ITO are examined, the absence of reasons by the Assessing Officer does not exist. This is so as along with the pro-forma, reasons set out by the Assessing Officer were, in fact, given. However, in the instant case, the manner in which the proforma was stamped amounting to approval by the Board leaves much to be desired. It is a case where literally a mere stamp is affixed. It is signed by an Under Secretary underneath a stamped Yes against the column which queried as to whether the approval of the Board had been taken. Rubber stamping of underlying material is hardly a process which can get the imprimatur of this court as it suggests that the decision has been taken in a mechanical manner. Even if the reasoning set out by the Income-tax Officer was to be agreed upon, the least which is expected is that an appropriate endorsement is made in this behalf set-ting out brief reasons. Reasons are the link between the material placed on record and the conclusion reached by an authority in respect of an issue, since they help in discerning the manner in which conclusion is reached by the concerned authority. Our opinion is fortified by the decision of the apex court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor¹ wherein it was observed as under: "27. We find considerable force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the 'rubber stamp' reason given mechanically for the supersession of each officer does not amount to 'reasons for the proposed supersession'. The most that could be said for the stock reason is that it is a general description of the process adopted in arriving at a conclusion. 28. If that had been done, facts on service records of officers considered by the Selection Committee would have been correlated to the conclusions reached. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable." (emphasis supplied)' 19. In the case of Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha³, the hon'ble Supreme Court refused to consider the affixing of signature along with the noting Yes' as valid approval and had held as under (page 608 of 79 ITR): 'Further the report submitted by him under section 151(2) does not mention any reason for coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case for the issue of a notice under section 148. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner has mechanically accorded permission. He did not himself record that he was satisfied that this was a fit case for the issue of a notice under section 148. To question 8 in the report which reads "whether the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for the issue of notice under section 148", he just noted the b word "yes" and affixed his signatures thereunder. We are of the opinion that if only he had read the report carefully, he could never have come to the conclusion on the material before him that this is a fit case to issue notice under section 148. The important safeguards provided in sections 147 and 151 were lightly treated by the Income-tax Officer as well as by the Commissioner. Both of them appear to have taken the duty imposed on them under those provisions as of little importance. They have substituted the form for the substance.' 20. This court, while following Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha in the case of Ess Advertising (Mauritius) S. N. C. Et Compagnie v. Asst. CIT (International Taxation), wherein, while granting the approval, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax has written: This is fit case for issue of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Approved, had held that the said approval would only amount to endorsement of language used in section 151 of the Act and would not reflect any independent application of mind. Thus, the same was considered to be flawed in law.”

In view of the above facts and looking to the approval granted by Ld. Pr. CIT, we find that Ld. Pr. CIT has not applied his mind on the material and simply accorded as approval by stating “I am satisfied”. Thus, we find that such approval is mechanical and therefore, consequent re-assessment order was passed based on such mechanical approval is not sustainable in the eyes of law therefore, the same is hereby quashed and consequent order passed u/s 147 of the Act is therefore, invalid and set aside. Accordingly, Ground of appeal No.1.8 raised by the assessee is, allowed. 16. The remaining two Ground of appeal Nos. 1.2 & 5 which were not decided by the coordinate bench while deciding the appeal of the assessee became academic and thus, not adjudicated. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.