sanctioning authority — 426 case laws

Veena Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 294/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 294/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2016-17) & Ita No. 295/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2017-18) Veena Singh Vs. Acit Flat 5, 2Nd Floor, J-21, Central Circle-25 South Extension Part-1, Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Delhi Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, Pan: Axjps9588H Delhi

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 44ASection 68Section 69A

application of mind. From the said approval, it can be easily inferred that the approved has been accorded with certain conditions. Thus, the sanctioning authority had in effect abdicated its statutory functions and delightfully relegated its statutory duty to the subordinate AO, whose action the Additional CIT, was supposed

Ganesh Shankar Pujare, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kudal

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 40/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.40/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ganesh Shankar Pujare, Vs. Ito, Ward, Kudal. Bidyewadi, At Post Kalmath, Taluka Kankavli, Sindhudurg- 416602. Pan : Anipp5657R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar : Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Assailing The Order Dated 08.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A) [‘Nfac’] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. Legality & Validity Of Reassessment Proceeding; 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Re-Assessment Proceeding Initiated By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law As The Same Is Based On Suspicious & Incorrect Information. Hence, As The Formation Of Belief Is Based On Incorrect, Suspicious & Vague Facts Same Is Unsus Tainable In Eye Of Law. 2. On The Facts & In Law, There Is Serious Jurisdictional Requirement In The Reasons Recorded By The Assessing Officer As He

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

consequence the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 31/03/2021 is bad in law. 4. On the facts and in law, the Sanctioning Authority seriously erred in giving approval under Section 151 of the Act to the proposal sent by the Assessing Officer as prima facie incorrect information

Kunwar Pal Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, the impugned notice is quashed

ITA 172/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: learned first appellate authority, inter alia, challenging the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act.

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147

draw adverse inference against respondent that if it is disclosed it may be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 7. One wonders whether the sanctioning authority under Section 151 of the Act also would have even applied his mind because the reasons recorded as noted above itself displays non application ... same was granted mechanically without application of mind to the facts because if only the Assessing Officer had placed the entire file before the sanctioning authority he would have pointed out the error in the reasons for re-opening. 8. In the circumstances, petition is allowed in terms of prayer

Sh. Martin Ekka S/O Sh. Lalsay Ekka, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward -1, Panchkula

In the result, the ground no

ITA 281/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, 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

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 38/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw

Section 80Section 80I

invalid as the case was reopened solely in view of specific directions given by Ld.CIT(A) i.e. without any application of mind by the sanctioning authority which amount to change of opinion, ignoring the specific direction given by another Ld.CIT(A) u/s150 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Whether ... Even it has been brought to the notice by the assessee in the present appellate proceedings that the sanctioning authority i.e. PCIT, Central, Ahmedabad for reopening the assessment has given the sanction only on the basis of directions given by the CIT(A)- 2, Ahmedabad without any independent application

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 37/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw

Section 80Section 80I

invalid as the case was reopened solely in view of specific directions given by Ld.CIT(A) i.e. without any application of mind by the sanctioning authority which amount to change of opinion, ignoring the specific direction given by another Ld.CIT(A) u/s150 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Whether ... Even it has been brought to the notice by the assessee in the present appellate proceedings that the sanctioning authority i.e. PCIT, Central, Ahmedabad for reopening the assessment has given the sanction only on the basis of directions given by the CIT(A)- 2, Ahmedabad without any independent application

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Cheryl Advisory Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2063/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Tanzil Padvekar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 153C

material with the reasons recorded live link of the material with the reasons recorded. T . The Hon’ble High Court further observed that sanctioning authority also did not apply Court further observed that sanctioning authority also did not apply Court further observed that sanctioning authority also did not apply mind

Anuj Chaudhary, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Ghaziabad

ITA 3453/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

draw adverse inference against respondent that if it is disclosed it may be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 7. One wonders whether the sanctioning authority under Section 151 of the Act also would have even applied his mind because the reasons recorded as noted above itself displays non application ... same was granted mechanically without application of mind to the facts because if only the Assessing Officer had placed the entire file before the sanctioning authority he would have pointed out the error in the reasons for re-opening. 8. In the circumstances, petition is allowed in terms of prayer

Leelaben Kantilal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2926/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed a/wFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath B. Pasale

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 250Section 69C

existed at the time of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, i.e. assessment year 2017-18, we find that the sanctioning authority under section 151 of the Act for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act has been amended from Joint Commissioner of Income ... Principal Chief Commissioner and Chief Commissioner of Income Tax were included in provisos to sub-section (1) and (2) of section 151. However, the sanctioning authority for issuance of notice under section 151(2) of the Act continues to be the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. However, vide Finance

Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

ITA 2748/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Mr. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 16(2)

Batras Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd.. ITA Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 2748 be. Before granting its sanction, the sanctioning authority is be. Before granting its sanction, the sanctioning authority is be. Before granting its sanction, the sanctioning authority is required to record its satisfaction based upon

Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

ITA 2747/MUM/2023[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh A. Thar, Mr. ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 16(2)

Batras Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd.. ITA Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 ITA Nos. 2748 be. Before granting its sanction, the sanctioning authority is be. Before granting its sanction, the sanctioning authority is be. Before granting its sanction, the sanctioning authority is required to record its satisfaction based upon

Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 250/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

contention of assessee that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the AO without recording proper satisfaction by the sanctioning authority u/s. 151 of the Act. To be precise, the assessee submitted that the AO forwarded a proposal seeking approval for issue of notice ... noted that the said satisfaction/recommendation recorded by the Range Head is only a mere formality, since the proposal is being forwarded to the sanctioning authority i.e., Pr.CIT through proper channel wherein the Range Head is the immediate superior of the AO. As such, in terms of the statutory provisions governing

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 191/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

contention of assessee that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the AO without recording proper satisfaction by the sanctioning authority u/s. 151 of the Act. To be precise, the assessee submitted that the AO forwarded a proposal seeking approval for issue of notice ... noted that the said satisfaction/recommendation recorded by the Range Head is only a mere formality, since the proposal is being forwarded to the sanctioning authority i.e., Pr.CIT through proper channel wherein the Range Head is the immediate superior of the AO. As such, in terms of the statutory provisions governing

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

ITA 190/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.190 To 191/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12 To 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2014-15) Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Vs. The Ito, No.504, 5Th Floor, H. No.6/B/1739- Ward-2(1)(3), 1380, Parshwa Complex Thoba Sheri, Surat Mahidharpura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaocs4409E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

contention of assessee that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the AO without recording proper satisfaction by the sanctioning authority u/s. 151 of the Act. To be precise, the assessee submitted that the AO forwarded a proposal seeking approval for issue of notice ... noted that the said satisfaction/recommendation recorded by the Range Head is only a mere formality, since the proposal is being forwarded to the sanctioning authority i.e., Pr.CIT through proper channel wherein the Range Head is the immediate superior of the AO. As such, in terms of the statutory provisions governing

Midway Exim P Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1773/DEL/2021[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Return Of Page 1 Of 15 Midway Exim Private Limited Vs. Ito

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

ignoring the fact that the sanction u/s 151 of IT Act as provided with the copy of the reason recorded shows mechanical satisfaction by sanctioning authority. 5. The impugned assessment is invalid and without jurisdiction as the said assessment is completed without complying with legal requirements of the provisions ... ignoring the fact that the sanction u/s 151 of IT Act as provided with the copy of the reason recorded shows mechanical satisfaction by sanctioning authority. 10. It is found that Ground No. 4 is not emanated from the impugned order of the CIT(A) even if the Ground

Jay Kishore Choubey, Rairangpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Asansol

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2/CTK/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 Jay Jay Kishore Kishore Choubey, Choubey, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1, Asansol. Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Rairangpur Bazar, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acmpc 1759 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Adv Revenue By : Shri Charan Das, Sr. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11 /11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri P.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri Charan Das, Sr

Section 147Section 148

accordance with law and valid reasons, (iv) Premlata soni vs nee 2021- 283 taxman 416- issue of notice u/s 148 does not envisage the sanctioning authority to separately give reason while approving the reasons. he is only to satisfied with reason recorded.” P a g e 12 | 15 Assessment Year

Ashish Sharma, Gopal Pura Bye - Pass Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Statue Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

therefore vitiated and deserve to be cancelled. 3. Sanction u/s 151(2) is not in accordance with law: - It is further submitted that the sanctioning authority u/s 151(2) which in this case is Principle CIT-2, Jaipur also erred in recording the satisfaction and granting approval to the Learned

Mah Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

ITA 279/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

assessment as valid ignoring that the sanction for reopening the assessment has been granted in mechanical manner without application of mind by the sanctioning authority. Thus the assessment so framed should be cancelled. 4. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the reopening of the assessment

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Ruchi Garg, Delhi

In the result, cross objection no

ITA 1440/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA

Section 153ASection 153CSection 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. Ruchi Garg, Delhi

In the result, cross objection no

ITA 1438/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA

Section 153ASection 153CSection 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

Veena Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle25, Delhi

Ganesh Shankar Pujare, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kudal

Kunwar Pal Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(3), Ghaziabad

Sh. Martin Ekka S/O Sh. Lalsay Ekka, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward -1, Panchkula

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Venus Infrastructure & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Cheryl Advisory Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Anuj Chaudhary, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Ghaziabad

Leelaben Kantilal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre

Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC, National Faceless Appeal Centre

Shrifal Impex Private Limited, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

Shrifal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(3), Surat

Midway Exim P Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

Jay Kishore Choubey, Rairangpur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Asansol

Ashish Sharma, Gopal Pura Bye - Pass Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Statue Circle, Jaipur

Mah Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Ruchi Garg, Delhi

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Ruchi Garg, Delhi