Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Validity of reassessment proceedings where sanction under section 151 was accorded in a mechanical manner by merely endorsing satisfaction on a printed pro forma.
Analysis: The approval granted by the specified authority was recorded only by affixing a rubber-stamp endorsement expressing satisfaction, without any independent reasons or material-linked consideration. For reopening under sections 148 and 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the prescribed authority must be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, and such satisfaction must reflect application of mind. A mere formal or ritualistic endorsement does not satisfy the statutory safeguard. Following the settled law that mechanical approval is invalid, the reassessment notices based on such sanction could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The reopening was invalid because the sanction under section 151 was mechanical and without due application of mind. The reassessment orders were liable to be quashed, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the reassessment proceedings founded on defective approval were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Sanction for issuance of notice under sections 148 and 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 must reflect genuine satisfaction based on an independent application of mind; a mere rubber-stamp or pro forma endorsement is not a valid approval and vitiates the reopening.