TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Assessment Year Reopening Challenged: Lack of Assessing Officer's Approval Leads to Document Submission Order and Costs.</h1> The petitioner contested a notice for reopening the assessment year 2008-09, arguing the Assessing Officer lacked the necessary approval from the ... Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Mandation to get approval from the competent authority - notice has been issued beyond a period of four years - According to the petitioner, AO had not obtained approval from the competent authority as provided u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 prior to its amendment w.e.f. 01.06.2015. HELD THAT:- We had required the counsel for the Revenue to produce before us, the original file showing such approval. Previously also, such opportunity was granted. We wanted to verify for ourselves whether such approval was, in fact, granted by the competent authority i.e. the Commissioner of Income Tax as contended by the respondent in this case. Despite multiple opportunities, the respondent has produced the file which merely contains a communication of such approval by the ITO. We were not satisfied by mere communication and desired to peruse the original file since this file contains a mere xerox copy of format for granting such approval purported to have been signed by the then S.S. Parida. We had requested the counsel for the Revenue to produce the original of these documents since the pointed contention was raised by the counsel for the petitioner that no such approval within the time permitted was ever granted. Despite multiple opportunities, the department has failed to produce such documents in original. Thus, separate this petition for further consideration on the limited question of the approval for issuance of notice having actually been granted by the Commissioner. Since the department has been delaying the progress in this matter, the department shall deposit a cost of Rs. 5000/- with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority before the next date of hearing. The petitioner challenged a notice for reopening the assessment year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer did not obtain approval from the competent authority as required by the Income Tax Act. The department failed to produce original documents showing approval, leading to further consideration on this issue. The department was directed to produce the original documents by a specific date and deposit a cost of Rs. 5000.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
