mechanical approval — 1,395 case laws

Harish Aswal, Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3373/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2008-09] Harish Aswal, Vs Dcit, E-12, Flat No.3006, Circle-1, Royale Garden Estate, Noida. Sector-61, Noida-201301. Pan-Adqpa6208F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. & Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By Shri Yogers Nayyar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.06.2022

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69C

material/reasonable cause and justification. (iii) Because the action for initiation of re-assessment proceedings is unreasonable since the approval granted by Pr.CIT was a mechanical approval and hence initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act on this ground is invalid.” 7. We have heard the contentions of Ld. Authorized

The Amravati People Co-Op Bank Ltd ( Now Merged in the Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd), Amaravati vs. D.C.I.T. Amravati Circle, Amaravati

ITA 309/NAG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 309/Nag/2015 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Amravati Peoples Co-Op. Bank Limited (Now Merged In The Cosmos Co-Op. Bank Ltd.) C/O. Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd. Jawahar Road, Amravati-444601. Pan : Aaact5899B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.G. Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas, Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri S.G. Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Agnes P. Thomas, DR

Section 143(3)Section 151

facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not dealing the core issue of "mechanical approval" granted by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax which is apparent from the fact that in the reasons recorded for re-opening 3 The Amravati Peoples ... 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 applyingthe mind by the Ld. Pr.CIT was not valid. Therefore, in the present case, the reopening of the assessment on the basis

DCIT-CC-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Agya Ram Manohar Lal, Khanna

In the result, the appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 247/CHANDI/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Section 133ASection 153ASection 153DSection 69

133A of the Act and secondly the assessment was bad in law as the approval obtained u/s 153D of the Act was a mere mechanical approval. However, we have already dismissed the appeal of the Department on merits and therefore, at this juncture, we are not inclined to comment/adjudicate

Anm Fincap P Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8757/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kr. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kureen, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

quashed. We, therefore, quash the reassessment proceedings. Since we have quashed the reassessment proceedings on account of wrong set of facts and mechanical approval under section 151 by the PCIT, the grounds challenging the validity of the assessment on account of jurisdiction by the A.O. and other plank of arguments

Shri Harjinder Singh, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bathinda

ITA 141/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR

Section 131(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

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 ... 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

Som Raj, Pathankot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Pathankot

ITA 628/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR

Section 147Section 148

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 ITA No. 628/Asr/2016 – A.Y 2010-11 14 Som Raj. Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Pathankot the mind by the Ld. Pr.CIT ... 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

Alankar Commodeal (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1257/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1257/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alankar Commodeal (P) Ltd..........................................…………………….……Appellant C/O Ca Bal Kishan Kedia, Bansal Complex, 1St Floor, Ram Nivas Talkies Chowk, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh-496001. [Pan: Aahca1771G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata…………….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Kr. Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 01, 2022 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.04.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Order Ex-Parte. 2. That Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law & Hence The Consequential Reassessment Order Is Also Illegal & Needs To Be Annulled. 3. That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of A Sum Of Rs.2,50,50,000/- For The Share Capital Raised By The Assessee, Holding The Same To Be Unexplained Cash-Credit In Terms Of Sec.68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Addition Is Unjustified & Need To Be Deleted. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Withdraw Any Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250Section 68

Cable Ltd. in ITA 335/2015 has held that mere mentioning ‘Yes’ for approval without any evidence of application of mind amounts to mechanical approval by CIT. Under the similar circumstances, wherein, the section for invoking reassessment has been recorded as section 147(b), the Coordinate Bench of the I.T.A. No.1257/Kol/2018

Bansal Rice Traders, Sangrur vs. ITO-Ward, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148

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 ... 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