sanctioning authority — 426 case laws

Dayal Singh, Vill Fatehpur Po Burewala vs. ITO Ward-1, Panchkula

In the result, the ground no

ITA 519/CHANDI/2024[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 519/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Dayal Singh, The Ito, Vill Fatehpur Ward -1, Po Burewala Panchkula Distt.Amabla 134204 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acdps7697G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Y.R. Saini, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assess Ee In This Appeal H As Taken Foll Owing Groun Ds Of Appeal: 1 That In The F Acts & Circumstance Of The Case The Id. Addl/Jcit (A)-9 Mumbai Of Cit (A)( Nfac) Has Erred In Law By Placing Reliance On Judgement Of Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Maji Sinneman Vs Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Y.R. Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

submit their VRS/VSS applications in the prescribed format In triplicate indicating clearly the Scheme under which they opt for VRS/VSS, to the Sanctioning Authority through proper channel. The Sanctioning Authority will communicate the acceptance of VRS/VSS to the employee indicating the date of relieving based on the decision

Nirmala Rani L/H of Sh. Azad Singh, Pinjore vs. ITO, Ward -1, Panchkula

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Of.

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 25FSection 89(1)

submit their VRS/VSS applications in the prescribed format In triplicate indicating clearly the Scheme under which they opt for VRS/VSS, to the Sanctioning Authority through proper channel. The Sanctioning Authority will communicate the acceptance of VRS/VSS to the employee indicating the date of relieving based on the decision

Naresh Kumar Kamboj, Zirakpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)

submit their VRS/VSS applications in the prescribed format In triplicate indicating clearly the Scheme under which they opt for VRS/VSS, to the Sanctioning Authority through proper channel. The Sanctioning Authority will communicate the acceptance of VRS/VSS to the employee indicating the date of relieving based on the decision

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ITA 1437/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1437/Chny/2024 & Co No.: 46/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner M/S. Cholamandalam Ms Of Income Tax, V. General Insurance Company Non-Corporate Circle -8, Limited, Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, No.2, Dare House, Chenai Annexe Building, G.P.O., Parrys, No. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai - 600 001. Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc-6633-K] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Assessee By : Ms. Kamakshi, Advocate For Mr. Sandeepbagmar, Advocate Department By : Mr.Nilaybaransom, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Aredirected Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 07.03.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) In

For Appellant: Ms. Kamakshi, Advocate forFor Respondent: Mr.NilayBaranSom, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री महावीर सिंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवं

ACIT Central Circle-II, Noida vs. Shaloo Garg, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1228/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

effective discharge of duty of supervisory nature owing to last minute supply of draft assessment orders. As discernible from the conjoint approval memo, the sanctioning authority (JCIT) has, in fact, under the force of circumstances, relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AD, whose action the JCIT, was supposed

ACIT Central Circle-II, Noida vs. Shaloo Garg, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1227/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

effective discharge of duty of supervisory nature owing to last minute supply of draft assessment orders. As discernible from the conjoint approval memo, the sanctioning authority (JCIT) has, in fact, under the force of circumstances, relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AD, whose action the JCIT, was supposed

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(2), Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 698/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

same, in our considered opinion, could not be regarded as a valid satisfaction as it does not reflect due application of mind of the sanctioning authority before granting satisfaction. This cryptic noting only leads to the inescapable conclusion that there was, in reality, no independent application of mind ... sanctioning authority while according approval in terms of section 151 of the Act. This clearly vitiates the purpose behind the inbuilt safeguards and checks provided by the statute on exercise of powers by the ld AO u/s 147/148 of the Act. It is trite law that the sanctioning authority

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 642/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

same, in our considered opinion, could not be regarded as a valid satisfaction as it does not reflect due application of mind of the sanctioning authority before granting satisfaction. This cryptic noting only leads to the inescapable conclusion that there was, in reality, no independent application of mind ... sanctioning authority while according approval in terms of section 151 of the Act. This clearly vitiates the purpose behind the inbuilt safeguards and checks provided by the statute on exercise of powers by the ld AO u/s 147/148 of the Act. It is trite law that the sanctioning authority

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 641/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

same, in our considered opinion, could not be regarded as a valid satisfaction as it does not reflect due application of mind of the sanctioning authority before granting satisfaction. This cryptic noting only leads to the inescapable conclusion that there was, in reality, no independent application of mind ... sanctioning authority while according approval in terms of section 151 of the Act. This clearly vitiates the purpose behind the inbuilt safeguards and checks provided by the statute on exercise of powers by the ld AO u/s 147/148 of the Act. It is trite law that the sanctioning authority

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Rule 27

ITA 622/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Banita Devi Naorem, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

same, in our considered opinion, could not be regarded as a valid satisfaction as it does not reflect due application of mind of the sanctioning authority before granting satisfaction. This cryptic noting only leads to the inescapable conclusion that there was, in reality, no independent application of mind ... sanctioning authority while according approval in terms of section 151 of the Act. This clearly vitiates the purpose behind the inbuilt safeguards and checks provided by the statute on exercise of powers by the ld AO u/s 147/148 of the Act. It is trite law that the sanctioning authority

DCIT.Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Smt Sandhya Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2407/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 145(3)Section 151

taxmann.com 338 (Delhi) "42. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that there was no independent application of mind by the sanctioning authorities for according approval. Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval ... Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 339/238 Taxman 423/383 ITR 597, the mere fact that the sanctioning authority did not record his satisfaction in so many words would not render invalid the sanction granted under section 151 (2) when the reasons

Sandhya Sharma, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2019/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT DR

Section 145(3)Section 151

taxmann.com 338 (Delhi) "42. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that there was no independent application of mind by the sanctioning authorities for according approval. Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval ... Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 67 taxmann.com 339/238 Taxman 423/383 ITR 597, the mere fact that the sanctioning authority did not record his satisfaction in so many words would not render invalid the sanction granted under section 151 (2) when the reasons

Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2353/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 17Section 250

erstwhile provision of Section 147(b) of the Act clearly reflects non- application of mind of the sanctioning authority as held in several judicial precedents. The approval by the sanctioning authority which reads as "yes, it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148" does not reveal ... lost. The reasons recorded thus itself do not meet the pre-requisites of Section 147 of the Act. Secondly, the approval by the sanctioning authority based on such reasons that too under non-existent provision i.e. Section 147(b) of the Act is a glaring pointer to mechanical approval under

Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2352/DEL/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 17Section 250

erstwhile provision of Section 147(b) of the Act clearly reflects non- application of mind of the sanctioning authority as held in several judicial precedents. The approval by the sanctioning authority which reads as "yes, it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148" does not reveal ... lost. The reasons recorded thus itself do not meet the pre-requisites of Section 147 of the Act. Secondly, the approval by the sanctioning authority based on such reasons that too under non-existent provision i.e. Section 147(b) of the Act is a glaring pointer to mechanical approval under

Gategroup Investments Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Int Tax Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 727/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhangateway Investments Singapore Pte Ltd. ...... Appellant 1 Maritime Square, # 12-03 Harbour Front Centre Singapore-99 253 Pan No. : Aaecg1565B

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain & Ms. Shikha MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant-Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 151Section 270ASection 274Section 56(2)

notices that could be issued for eternity like in this case, on 31st July 2022, would be sanctioned by the authority other than sanctioning authority defined under the Act. 12 32 We have to also note that the instructions dated 11th May 2022, on which revenue have relied upon ... Financials (Supra), Sidhmicro Equities (P) Ltd. (Supra) and confirmed by the Apex Court that any notice issued without the sanction of the correct sanctioning authority will be invalid. This court in Godrej Industries Limited v. DCIT 16 has held that an assessment can be reopened under section

M.G.Metalloy P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 650/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: the ld. CIT (A) and before ld. CIT (A), assessee has raised several jurisdictional issues on the issue of scope of jurisdiction of section 153A and also raised the issue of provisions of section 153D of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) dismissed the jurisdictional issue and partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

effective discharge of duty of supervisory nature owing to last minute supply of draft assessment orders. As discernible from the conjoint approval memo, the sanctioning authority (JCIT) has, in fact, under the force of circumstances, relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the JCIT, was supposed

M.G.Metalloy P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 649/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the ld. CIT (A) and before ld. CIT (A), assessee has raised several jurisdictional issues on the issue of scope of jurisdiction of section 153A and also raised the issue of provisions of section 153D of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) dismissed the jurisdictional issue and partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

effective discharge of duty of supervisory nature owing to last minute supply of draft assessment orders. As discernible from the conjoint approval memo, the sanctioning authority (JCIT) has, in fact, under the force of circumstances, relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the JCIT, was supposed

M.G Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., U.P vs. DCIT Central Circle, U.P

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 648/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: the ld. CIT (A) and before ld. CIT (A), assessee has raised several jurisdictional issues on the issue of scope of jurisdiction of section 153A and also raised the issue of provisions of section 153D of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) dismissed the jurisdictional issue and partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

effective discharge of duty of supervisory nature owing to last minute supply of draft assessment orders. As discernible from the conjoint approval memo, the sanctioning authority (JCIT) has, in fact, under the force of circumstances, relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the JCIT, was supposed

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Mg Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1435/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: the ld. CIT (A) and before ld. CIT (A), assessee has raised several jurisdictional issues on the issue of scope of jurisdiction of section 153A and also raised the issue of provisions of section 153D of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) dismissed the jurisdictional issue and partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

effective discharge of duty of supervisory nature owing to last minute supply of draft assessment orders. As discernible from the conjoint approval memo, the sanctioning authority (JCIT) has, in fact, under the force of circumstances, relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the JCIT, was supposed

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Mg Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1434/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

effective discharge of duty of supervisory nature owing to last minute supply of draft assessment orders. As discernible from the conjoint approval memo, the sanctioning authority (JCIT) has, in fact, under the force of circumstances, relegated his statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the JCIT, was supposed

“sanctioning authority”

Leading authorities on sanctioning authority

Judgments citing sanctioning authority

Dayal Singh, Vill Fatehpur Po Burewala vs. ITO Ward-1, Panchkula

Nirmala Rani L/H of Sh. Azad Singh, Pinjore vs. ITO, Ward -1, Panchkula

Naresh Kumar Kamboj, Zirakpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Panchkula

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai

ACIT Central Circle-II, Noida vs. Shaloo Garg, Delhi

ACIT Central Circle-II, Noida vs. Shaloo Garg, Delhi

Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(2), Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Rajeev Kumar Arora, Ghaziabad

DCIT.Central Circle-14, New Delhi vs. Smt Sandhya Sharma, New Delhi

Sandhya Sharma, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Delhi

Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(1), Delhi

Gategroup Investments Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. Int Tax Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

M.G.Metalloy P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

M.G.Metalloy P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

M.G Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., U.P vs. DCIT Central Circle, U.P

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Mg Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Mg Metalloy Pvt. Ltd., Delhi