Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: SH. RAVISH SOOD & DR. M. L. MEENA
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against
the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda,
dated 24.01.2018, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O
u/ss. 143(3)/147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), dated
2 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
19.12.216 for Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee has assailed the
impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us :
“1. That the Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda erred on facts and law in upholding the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of the fact that there is no service of notice issued u/s 148 of IT Act, 1961. The findings of the CIT(A) that only the issuance of notice is required to assume the jurisdiction is factually against the principle of law as settled by the Apex Court.
That the Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda erred on facts and law in upholding the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of the fact that the proceedings had been initiated only for the purpose of verification regarding source of investment of cash deposits in the bank which is against the settled principles of law.
That the Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda erred on facts and law in upholding the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 by the AO because there was no recording of satisfaction by the Pr. CIT, as provided u/s 151(1), on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148.
That the Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda erred on facts and law in sustaining the addition of Rs.63,33,000/- which had been made by the AO for not explaining the source of cash deposited in the bank although it had been explained that the cash deposited in the saving fund account belonged to Sh. Baljinder Singh. The explanation filed during the course of assessment proceedings has been rejected without rebutting the same.
That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed of.”
Briefly stated, on the basis of information received by the A.O that
the assessee during the year under consideration had deposited Rs. 98.33
lac in his bank account with Punjab & Sind Bank, Village : Goniana, the A.O
reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. In compliance to the Notice issued
3 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
u/s 148 of the Act the assessee filed his return of income for A.Y 2009-10
on 15.11.2016, declaring an income of Rs. 1,03,464/- a/w agriculture
income of Rs. 50,000/-.
During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee on
being queried as regards the source of the aforesaid cash deposit of Rs.
98.33 lac (supra) in his bank account, submitted, that the said amount was
deposited by one Sh. Baljinder Singh s/o Shr. Gurnam Singh r/o. Village :
Balhar Vinju out of the sale proceeds of his land, which thereafter was
withdrawn by the said person for purchase of new agricultural land. In sum
and substance, the assessee distanced himself from the cash deposits in
his bank a/c and related the same to Sh. Baljinder Singh (supra). As the
assessee requested for cross-examination of Sh. Baljinder Singh (supra),
therefore, the A.O summoned Sh. Baljinder Singh (supra) u/s 131(1) of the
Act, and directed him to produce a copy of the sale/purchase deeds a/w
copy of his bank accounts for the period 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009. In
compliance, Sh. Baljinder Singh (supra) though appeared before the A.O,
however, in his statement recorded on oath he did not even recognize the
assessee, and categorically stated that he had neither any dealings with
4 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
him nor had deposited any cash in his bank account. Also, Sh. Baljinder
Singh (supra) further declined to give any copy of sale/purchase deed and
his bank statement to the assessee. Observing, that the assessee on being
confronted as regards the source of the cash deposits in his bank account
had came forth with a concocted story and had tried to shift the burden of
explaining the source of the same to another person who did not even
recognize him, the A.O held the amount of Rs. 63.33 lac that was
deposited by the assessee over the year under consideration in his bank
a/c, as unexplained deposits within the meaning of Sec. 69A of the Act,
and added the same to his returned income. Accordingly, the A.O vide his
order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act, dated 19.12.2016 assessed the
income of the assesse at an amount of Rs. 64,36,460/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the
CIT(A). However, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the AO, the
CIT(A) upheld the addition and dismissed the appeal.
The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has
carried the matter before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the
appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative (for short “A.R”) for the assessee
5 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
sought for admission of the copies of the sale deeds and the bank a/c of
Sh. Baljinder Singh (supra) as additional evidence. It was submitted by the
ld. A.R, that as Sh. Baljinder Singh (supra) had during the course of the
assessment proceedings declined to furnish copies of the sale deeds a/w
his bank a/c, and the same despite specific requests of the assessee before
the A.O were not made available to him, therefore, the assessee was
prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from producing/filing the said
documents which have a strong bearing on the adjudication of the issues
involved in the present appeal in the course of the proceedings before the
lower authorities. Backed by his aforesaid claim, it was submitted by the ld.
A.R that the said documents in all fairness and interest of justice be
admitted. Apart from that, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O had
wrongly assumed jurisdiction for reopening the case of the assessee u/s
147 of the Act. Elaborating on his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by
the ld AR, that the reopening of the assessee’s case suffers from certain
serious jurisdictional defects, viz. (i). that the AO had framed the impugned
assessment u/ss. 143(3)/147, dated 19.12.2016 without validly effecting
service of notice u/s 148 of the Act upon the assessee; (ii). that the AO
had gravely erred in not obtaining the approval from the appropriate
6 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
authority as contemplated u/s 151 of the Act; and (iii). that the authority
sanctioning the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act had granted the
approval/sanction in a mechanical way, i.e., without any application of
mind to the facts of the case. Adverting to his claim that the approval u/s
151 of the Act was granted in a mechanical manner and, without any
application of mind, the ld AR had drawn our attention to the approval so
granted in the case of the assessee (Page 79 to 81 of APB). It was
submitted by the ld AR, that the approving authority, i.e, Principal
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda, had merely by way of an idle
formality as regards recording of his satisfaction on the reasons recorded
by the AO for reopening the case of the assessee stated “Yes” in the form
of approval. It was submitted by the ld AR, that the approval u/s 151 of
the Act had been granted by the sanctioning authority in a mechanical
manner, i.e, without any application of mind. It was submitted by the ld AR
that in a host of cases where the sanctioning authority had granted
approval by merely scribbling “Yes” instead of giving any cogent reason
qua his satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the AO, for reopening the
case of the assessee before them, the reopening of the respective
assessments had been struck down by the courts/tribunals, on the ground,
7 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
that an approval granted in a mechanical manner would by no means
justify valid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO. In support of his
aforesaid contention the ld. AR had relied on certain judicial
pronouncements, viz. (i). Smt. Nirmal Kaur cs. DCIT, ITA No.
575/Asr/2016 (ii). CIT Vs. M/s S. Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd. (2015)
56 taxmann.com 390 (MP); (iii). ITO Vs. M/s Observer Investment &
Finance Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009; (iv). N.C Cables Ltd. Vs.
Pr. CIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 649 (Del); and (v). Shri. Krishan Gopal.
Prop. Kay Pee Lock Vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), Delhi (Delhi). In the backdrop of
his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the ld AR that as the approval
in the case of the assessee was granted by the sanctioning authority in a
mechanical manner, i.e, without application of mind, therefore, the
assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3)/147, dated 19/12/2016 could not
be sustained for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short “D.R.”)
relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld
D.R, that as the sanctioning authority, i.e, the Principal Commissioner of
Income-tax was at Column 13 of the form of approval only required to
8 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
state as to whether he was satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO
that it is a fit case for the issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961,
therefore, by stating “Yes” he had duly expressed that he was satisfied
with the same. It was submitted by the ld DR that as the AO had validly
assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act, therefore, no infirmity did emerge
from the order passed by him u/ss. 143(3)/147 of the Act, dated
19.12.2016.
We have heard the ld Authorized representatives for both the parties,
perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on
record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been
pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. As
the assessee has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed
by the A.O for reopening of his case u/s 147 of the Act, therefore, we shall
first deal with the same. On a perusal of the records, we find substantial
force in the claim of the ld. AR that the authority granting the sanction u/s
151 of the Act, viz. Pr. CIT, Bhatinda, had granted the approval in a
mechanical manner, i.e, without application of mind. As is discernible from
9 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
Column No. 13 of the form of approval wherein sanction had been granted,
we find that the sanctioning authority had therein stated as under :-
Whether the Pr. CIT is satisfied on Yes the reasons recorded by the AO that Sd/- it is a fit case for the issue of notice (K.M Bali) u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax Bhatinda
In our considered view, a mere scribbling or stating “Yes” would not suffice
the statutory requirement of Sec. 151 of the Act, i.e, satisfaction on the
part of the sanctioning authority, on the reasons recorded by the A.O, that
it is a fit case for issuance of a notice u/s 148 of the Act. As provided in
Section 151 of the Act, no notice u/s 148 is to be issued by an AO unless
the specified approving authority is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by
the AO, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. In our considered
view, the aforesaid statutory provision, viz. Section 151 had been made
available on the statute by the legislature, as an inbuilt safeguard, or, in
fact as a supervisory check over the work of the AO, particularly, in context
of reopening of an assessment, so that an assessment be reopened by an
A.O in exercise of the powers vested with him u/s 147 of the Act only after
due application of mind and, if for some reason, an error creeps into the
10 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
exercise of the said power by the A.O, then, the superior officer, i.e, the
authority specified in Sec. 151 of the Act is able to correct the same. It is
for the aforesaid reason that Section 151 requires an officer of the rank of
a Joint Commissioner of Income-tax to oversee the decision of the AO
where the return originally filed was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act, and
further, in a case where such reopening of an assessment is sought to be
made after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant
assessment year, then, the said obligation is shifted on a superior officer as
therein contemplated. In our considered view, as the reopening of a case
results to disturbing the finality of a concluded assessment, therefore, the
authorities specified for granting of approval u/s 151 of the Act remain
under a statutory obligation of clearly applying their mind on the “reasons
to believe” recorded by the AO and, only after being satisfied that it is a fit
case for issuance of Notice u/s 148 of the Act, approve the same. In fact,
the approving authority in discharge of his aforesaid statutory duty is
obligated to record his satisfaction as regards the reasons recorded by the
AO for reopening the case of the assessee, in a manner, which would
reveal that as per him it is a fit case for issuance of Notice u/s 148 of the
Act. In our considered view, mere scribbling of “Yes” by the approving
11 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
authority, as is the case before us, can by no means suffice the statutory
obligation cast upon him for granting approval after due application of
mind for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act by the AO, as the said
statutory check would otherwise be rendered as a mere idle formality,
nugatory or in fact nothing better than an eye wash, which would beyond
any doubt defeat the very purpose for which the said supervisory
jurisdiction of the superior authorities had been made available on the
statute by the legislature. Our aforesaid conviction is supported by the
order of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Charanjiv Lal Aggarwal, Prop. M/s.
Premier Rubber Mills, Amritsar Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Amritsar, ITA No.
598/Asr/2015. Also, a similar view had been taken by this Tribunal in its
recent order passed in the case of S/shri Tralochan Singh & Narotam
Singh Vs. ITO, Ward 1(4), Mansa in ITA Nos. 306 & 307/Asr/2019, dated
30.06.2021, wherein it was held as under:-
“12. As regards to the validity of the reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, it is not in dispute that the A.O. is required to get the approval of the competent authority i.e; JCIT in the present case. Copy of the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 of the Act and for obtaining the approval of the JCIT is placed at page no. 2 & 3 of the assessee’s paper book wherein at S.No. 12 relating to satisfaction of the JCIT on the reasons recorded by the ITO for issuing of the notice under section 148 of the Act. The JCIT, Range-1, Bathinda mentioned as under: “Yes, it is a fit case to issue notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act
12 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
Sd/- P.K. Sharma JCIT, Range-1, Bathinda
12.1 From the aforesaid approval given by the JCIT, Range-1, Bathinda, it is clear that the satisfaction has been recorded in a mechanical manner, without applying the mind, for issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act.
An identical issue having similar facts has been adjudicated by this Bench of the ITAT in case of Shri Satnam Singh, Jalandhar Vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jalandhar in ITA No. 579/ASR/2019 for the A.Y. 2013-14 vide order dt. 29/06/2021 wherein by following the order dated 15/03/2021 in ITA No. 215/Chd/2020 for the A.Y. 2009-10 in the case of Shri Tek Chand, Karnal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kaithal, the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant findings have been given in para 14 to 14.4 which read as under: 14. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it is noticed that the A.O. obtained the approval of the JCIT before issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act, performa copy of which is placed at page no. 1 of the assessee’s paper book, in the said Performa for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 147 / 148 of the Act and for obtaining the approval of the Ld. JCIT, it has been mentioned in column no. 11 as under:
“ Yes it is approved for 148 action “
Sd/-
(Umesh Takyar) Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1, Jalandhar
From the aforesaid approval it is clear that the JCIT, Range-1, Jalandhar recorded the satisfaction in a mechanical manner without application of mind. He accorded the sanction for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act in a mechanical manner.
14.1 On a similar issue the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Ladhuram Laxmi narayan Vs. ITO, Additional 102 ITR 595 (supra) held as under:
Sub-section (2) of Section 151 requires that before issuing a notice under Section 148, the Commissioner must be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. The submission of the learned counsel is that in the instant case there was no real satisfaction of the Commissioner or in other words there could not be satisfaction of the Commissioner as contemplated under Subsection (2) in the facts and circumstances of the
13 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
case. In the column of the report whether the Commissioner was satisfied, the Additional Commissioner said " Yes ".
We have already found that the first ground given by the Income-tax Officer in his report praying for sanction for acting under Section 148 is admittedly a mistaken ground and, therefore, non- existent. That being so, the satisfaction of the Additional Commissioner in the instant case, so far as the first ground is concerned, is wholly mechanical without applying his mind.
It has further been held
Regarding the second ground, we find that the satisfaction could in law be only with respect to Clause (b) of Section 147 and that being so the notice issued on March 10, 1971, would be clearly barred under Section 149 of the Act.
In the result, in any view of the matter, we find that the impugned notice under Section 148 in the instant ease is bad in law and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, we quash the impugned notice dated March 10, 1.971, under Section 148 of the Act.
14.2 A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P. Munirathnam Chetty And P. Vs. ITO, C-Ward 101 ITR 385 (supra)wherein it has been held as under:
The form like the one which is being used containing an endorsement merely saying "Yes" would justifiably cause apprehension that the act of the Commissioner is a mechanical act. In order to obviate this impression and to infuse more confidence in the assessee, it would be proper if the Commissioner also briefly slates why he has given his sanction to the proceedings under Section 147, thus avoiding all arguments in courts of law whether he applied his mind or he would have been satisfied in the circumstances of the case or not.
14.3 On an identical issue the ITAT Chandigarh Bench “B” Chandigarh vide order dt. 15/03/2021 in ITA No. 215/Chd/2020 for the A.Y. 2009-10 in the case of Shri Tek Chand Vs ITO, Ward-2, Kaithal held as under:
14.1 The A.O. obtained the approval of the PR. CIT before issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act. The proposal dt. 11/03/2016 seeking the approval for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, by the A.O. is placed at page no. 2 & 3 of the assessee’s paper book. While giving the approval the Ld. PR. CIT, Karnal recorded as under:
“ Yes, satisfied, it is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148”
14 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
Sd/-
Pr. CIT, Karnal
14.2 From the aforesaid approval, it is clear that the Ld. Pr. CIT recorded satisfaction in the mechanical manner, without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. On an identical issue the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Jabalpur Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported at (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 390 by following its own decision in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. ADIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (M.P) held as under:
We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied". In the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the same question has been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the following principles are laid down:—
The Commissioner acted, of course, mechanically in order to discharge is statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format "Yes, 1 am satisfied" which indicates as if he was to sign only on the dotted line. Even otherwise also, the exercise is shown to have been performed in less than 24 hours of time which also goes to indicate that the Commissioner did not apply his mind at all while granting sanction. The satisfaction has to be with objectivity on objective material.
If the case in hand is analysed on the basis of the aforesaid principle, the mechanical way of recording satisfaction by the Joint Commissioner, which accords sanction for issuing notice under section 148, is clearly unsustainable and we find that on such consideration both the appellate authorities have interfered into the matter. In doing so, no error has been committed warranting reconsideration.
As far as explanation to Section 151, brought into force by Finance Act, 2008 is concerned, the same only pertains to issuance of notice and not with regard to the manner of recording satisfaction. That being so, the said amended provision does not help the revenue.
In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the learned appellate authorities and the law laid down in the case of Arjun Singh (supra), we see no question of law involved in the matter, warranting reconsideration.
15 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
14.3 Against the said order, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Department and affirmed the order of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (supra) held as under:
“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.”
We therefore by following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid referred to case, are of the view that the reopening under section 148 of the Act on the basis of mechanical approval without applying the mind by the Ld. Pr.CIT was not valid. Therefore, in the present case, the reopening of the assessment on the basis of notice under section 148 of the Act is quashed.
14.4 In the present case also since the A.O. reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act by issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act, on the basis of mechanical approval, without applying his mind, therefore the said approval was not valid and consequently the reopening of the assessment on the basis of said approval was not valid. We therefore quash the same. Since, we have decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee therefore no finding is given on the other grounds raised by the assessee on merit.
13.1 Since the facts of the present case are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to case of Shri Satnam Singh, Jalandhar Vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jalandhar in ITA No. 579/ASR/2019 for the A.Y. 2013-14, so respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dt. 29/06/2021 the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act by issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act is quashed. Since we have decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee therefore no finding is given on the other grounds raised by the assessee on merit.”
Also, we find that a similar view had been taken by the ITAT, Chandigarh
Bench in the case of Shri. Tek Chand Vs. The ITO, Ward-2, Karnal, ITA
No. 255/Chd/2020, dated 15.03.2021. In the said case the approving
authority, i.e., Principal CIT, Karnal had granted the approval for issuance
of notice u/s 147 of the Act, as under:-
“Yes, satisfied, it is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148
16 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
-Sd/- Pr. CIT, Karnal”
The Tribunal by drawing support from the judgments of the Hon’ble High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. S. Goyanka Lime &
Chemical Ltd (2015) 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP); and that in the case of
Arjun Singh Vs. Asst. DIT reported in (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP), had
observed, that as the reopening of the case of the assessee u/s 148 was
on the basis of a mechanical approval without application of mind by the
Principal. CIT, therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 could not be sustained
and was liable to be quashed. At this stage, we may herein observe, that
the aforementioned judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in the case of S. Goyanka Lime (supra) had thereafter impliedly
been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which had dismissed the
Special Leave Petition (SLP) that was filed by the revenue in Commissioner
of Income-tax, Jabalpur (MP) Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. (2015)
64 taxmann.com 313 (SC). Also, we find that a similar view had been taken
by ITAT, Amritsar Bench in its recent order passed in the case of Shri
Satnam Singh Vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jalandhar, ITA No. 579/Asr/2019, dated
17 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
29.06.202 for AY 2013-14. In the case before the Tribunal the approving
authority had granted the approval by stating as under:-
“ Yes it is approved for 148 action Sd/- (Umesh Takyar) Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1, Jalandhar.”
On appeal, the Tribunal was of the view that as the JCIT, Range-1,
Jalandhar had granted the approval in a mechanical manner, i.e, without
application of mind, therefore, the reopening of the assessee’s case was
liable to be quashed for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction.
In the backdrop of the facts involved in the case of the assessee
before us, we are of the considered view, that the facts and the issue
herein involved, i.e., sustainability of the assessment in the backdrop of
grant of approval u/s 151 in a mechanical manner, i.e, without application
of mind by the approving authority, viz. Pr. CIT, Bhatinda is in parity with
those as were involved in the aforementioned judicial pronouncements.
We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, are of the considered
view, that as in case of the assessee before us the prescribed authority,
viz. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bhatinda, had granted the
18 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10
approval u/s 151 of the Act in a mechanical manner, i.e, without
application of mind to the facts of the case as were there before him,
therefore, the assessment framed by the AO u/ss. 143(3)/147 of the Act,
dated 19.12.2016 cannot be sustained and is liable to be vacated.
Accordingly, the assessment framed by the A.O u/ss. 143(3)/147 of the
Act, dated 19.12.2016 is herein quashed for want of valid assumption of
jurisdiction by him.
As we have quashed the reopening of the assessee’s case for want of
jurisdiction on the part of the A.O, for the reasons stated hereinabove,
therefore, we refrain from adverting to the other contentions advanced by
the ld AR as regards the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO for
framing the impugned assessment, as well as those advanced by him qua
the sustainability of the additions on the merits of the case, which, thus,
are left open.
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1962, by placing the details on the notice board. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. MEENA) (RAVISH SOOD) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 21/02/2022
19 Shri. Harjinder Singh Vs. ITO, Ward -2(1), Bhatinda ITA No. 141/Asr/2018 – A.Y 2009-10