https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758053 Reopening under the Income-tax Act was challenged on the ground that the mandatory approval under s.151 for issuance of notice under s.148 was vitiated by non-application of mind. The HC held that the approving authority granted sanction mechanically: although the taxpayer's reply was scanned and reproduced in the draft order under s.148A(d), the order simultaneously recorded in the prescribed column that no reply had been filed, revealing that the draft was not properly examined. Reliance on SC precedent was rejected as it did not permit jurisdictional action without due application of mind. Consequently, the order under s.148A(d) and the notice under s.148 were quashed and the writ petition was allowed. en-us Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 11:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758053 Reopening under the Income-tax Act was challenged on the ground that the mandatory approval under s.151 for issuance of notice under s.148 was vitiated by non-application of mind. The HC held that the approving authority granted sanction mechanically: although the taxpayer's reply was scanned and reproduced in the draft order under s.148A(d), the order simultaneously recorded in the prescribed column that no reply had been filed, revealing that the draft was not properly examined. Reliance on SC precedent was rejected as it did not permit jurisdictional action without due application of mind. Consequently, the order under s.148A(d) and the notice under s.148 were quashed and the writ petition was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758053