2024 (4) TMI 1319 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening approval invalid as postdated, unsigned, and not invoking fifth proviso to s.149; assessment proceedings set aside

HC held the approval for reopening was invalid because it postdated the three-year limit and the approval form was unsigned and failed to invoke any ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - approval u/s 151 - period of limitation - three years after the expiry of assessment year - time limit for current proceedings - HELD THAT:- The facts in this case are almost identical to the facts in Kartik Sureshchandra Gandhi [2023 (8) TMI 519 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the approval u/s 151 filed through one Sanjay V. Deshmukh currently holding the post of Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation and affirmed on 21st November 2023, in Box-9 for time limit for current proceedings covered under, the answer is, u/s 149(1)(b) of the Act - for more than 3 years, but not more than 10 years. We cannot even make out whether the order-sheet has been signed by the same Mr. Vijay Shankar, CIT, who has given the approval, because the approval form annexed to the petition is unsigned. When the approval has been granted CIT should have realized that it is more than three years after the expiry of assessment year, which was 2019-2020. If some time has to be excluded as per the fifth proviso to Section 149 of the Act, that should have been mentioned in the order-sheet, otherwise it would only amount to exercising jurisdiction which he never had. Assessment proceedings set aside. The facts mirror a prior decision: the approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act showed Box-9 answering the time limit as falling 'under Section 149(1)(b) ... for more than 3 years, but not more than 10 years' for assessment year 2019-2020, with the approval dated 27th April 2023. The challenge was that the approving authority was a Commissioner, whereas approval for that Box-9 category ought to be by the Principal Chief Commissioner. The court noted the system may auto-populate Box-9, but held the Commissioner 'should have returned the approval for correcting the form or at least made a remark in his own handwriting.' The annexed approval was unsigned and the order-sheet did not explain any exclusion under the 'fifth proviso to Section 149.' As the Commissioner granted approval past the three-year limitation without stating proviso exclusions, the exercise of jurisdiction was improper. The court therefore 'quash[ed] and set aside the impugned order dated 27th April 2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the impugned notice also dated 27th April 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act.'