TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 1071
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lding the assessment to be null and void. He failed to appreciate that when Addl. CIT records his satisfaction then only he forwards the proposal to the CIT just because the CIT has also given his approval it does not become illegal." 3. Facts of the case in brief are that the original assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 26.02.2005 at an income of Rs. 25,42,690/-. Later on, the case was reopened after recording the following reasons: "In this return was filed on dated 01.11.2004 at return income of Rs. 25,42,694/-, the same was processed on 26.02.2006. It has come to the notice that certain investigation were carried out by the Directorate of Invest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ney in its bank a/c by way of above accommodation entries." The AO framed the assessment at an income of Rs. 55,45,710/- by making the additions of Rs. 30,03,015/- u/s 68 of the act. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and challenged the reopening by submitting that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued beyond four years and the permission before issuing the notice was not obtained from the prescribed/competent authority in terms of Section 151 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223. 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee quashed the assessment by observing at p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As seen from the record there is no evidence to show that there was scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) either on 26.02.2005 or on 26.02.2006 as mentioned by the AO in the assessment order in the appellant's case for the impugned assessment year earlier to issue of notice u/s 148 on 30.03.3011. The return was only processed u/s 143(1) on 26.02.2005 as seen from the record. Hence, since notice was issued beyond 4 years from the end of asst. year, the AO should have obtained the permission of Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of Section 151. In this case, the permission was obtained from Commissioner of Income Tax in contravention to the provisions of Section 151 of the Act. The main contention of the AR, in s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... When a statute requires a thing to be done in a certain manner, it shall be done in that manner alone and the court would not expect its being done in some other manner, Section 116 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, defines the Income-tax authorities as different and distinct authorities. Such different and distinct authorities have to exercise their powers in accordance with law as per the power given to them in specified circumstances. If a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be a case of fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions the ld. DR strongly supported the impugned order and reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Del) • DSJ Communication Ltd. Vs DCIT (2014) 222 Taxman 129 (Bom) • Ghanshyam K. Khabrani Vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom) • Sunint Investment & Technologies (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012) 54 SOT 126 (Del ITAT) • ITO Vs Tirupati Cylinders Ltd. (Del. ITAT order dated 28.09.2013) • ITO Vs Tirupati Cylinders Ltd. (Del. ITAT order dated 30.09.2014 • Gajinder Singh Chhabra Vs ITO (2014) 50 Taxmann.com 312 (Del. Trib) • Jai Prakash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the doing of the Act authorized under other circumstances than those as defined. It is also established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to record his/her satisfaction on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should apply his/her independent mind to record his/her satisfaction and further mandatory condition is that the satisfaction recorded should be "independent" and not "borrowed" or "dictated" satisfaction. Law in this regard is now wellsettled. The Apex Court in the case of AnirudhSinhji KaranSinhji Jadeja Vs State of Gujarat (1995) 5 SCC 302 has held th....