DCIT Circle-19(1), New Delhi vs. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, New Delhi
Appeals are dismissed and CO, stand infructuous
ITA 1990/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.1988 To 1990/Del/2020 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., Circle-19(1), 19, Rajendra Park, New Delhi. D-26, Kapashera Pushpanjali, Delhi – 110 060. Pan: Aaecp4424C Co Nos.84 & 85/Del/2023 (Ita No.1989 & 1990/Del/2020) Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 19, Rajendra Park, Circle-19(1), D-26, Kapashera Pushpanjali, New Delhi Delhi – 110 060. Pan: Aaecp4424C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.S. Nagar, Advocate & Shri Gaurav Sachdeva, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2024 Order
For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)
…dependent mind to record his/her satisfaction and further mandatory condition is that the satisfaction recorded should be "independent" and not "borrowed" or "dictated" satisfaction. Law in this regard is now sell-settled. In Sheo Narain Jaiswal v. ITO [1989] 176 ITR 352/45 Taxman 213 (Pat.), it was held: "Where the Assessing Officer does not himself exercise his jurisdiction under Section 147 but merely acts at the behest of any superior authority, it must be held that assumption of jurisdiction was bad for non-satisfaction of the condition precedent." 6.6 Then ld, CIT(A) has relied the jurisdictional ITAT deci…