TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 838
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In response to the said notices, the assessee filed return of income on 18.9.2006 declaring the same income as was declared in the original return of income for both the years. Finally, in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, an amount of Rs. 31,55,000/- and Rs. 23 lakhs was added u/s 68 of the Act in both the A.Ys under consideration as unexplained cash credits in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority who dismissed the challenge of the assessee to the initiation of proceedings and issuance of notices u/s 147/148 of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee on merits and directed the AO to delete the additions of Rs. 24,75,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/- and Rs. 4,30,000 for A.Y 2000-01 and also directed the AO to delete the entire addition of Rs. 23 lakhs for A.Y 202-03 which were made u/s 68 of the Act. Now the aggrieved Revenue is before this Tribunal challenging the said deletion made by the first appellate authority and the assessee has also filed the cross objection challenging the conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) wherein the legal objection of the assessee regarding init....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alid jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of the Act without complying with the mandatory requirements as prescribed in the provisions of section 147 to 151 of the Act. 5. Replying to the above, the ld. DR strongly supported the action of the AO as well as the conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) dismissing the legal objection of the AO against the valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 of the Act and submitted that after the perusal of the entire note and record, if sanctioning authority has put his signature alongwith date then the same is suffice to show application of mind and hence legal objection of the assessee was rightly dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). 6. The ld. AR also placed rejoined to the above submissions of the ld. DR and placed his reliance on the decision of the ITAT 'H' Bench, New Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. Amar Khosla dated 26.8.2012 in ITA No. 1891/Del/2010, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 20.7.2015 [supra]. He drew our attention towards para 19 to 21 of the Tribunal order and submitted that non mentioning of any word by the ld. CIT(A) or approval granting authority while affixing signature cannot be presumed that the ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the case of Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs ITO, 333 ITR 237 (Del), the Jurisdictional High Court held as follows. "Held, allowing the appeal, (i) that reasons are the link between material placed on record and the conclusion reached by an authority in respect of an issue, since they help in discerning the manner in which the conclusion is reached by the concerned authority. It was a case where literally a mere stamp was affixed and was signed by an Under Secretary underneath a stamped "yes" against the column which queried as to whether the approval of the Board had been taken. Rubber stamping of underlying material suggested that the decision was taken in a mechanical manner. Thus, a proper application of mind had not taken place". 20.1. Even if the reasons set out by ITO were to be agreed upon, the least which is expected is that the appropriate authority as to the grant of approval by saying "yes" or any such word. 20.2. In the case of United Electric Co.P.Ltd. vs CIT and others, 258 ITR 317, the Hon'ble High Court at page 323 pagination G & H held as follows. "What disturbs us more is that even the Additional Commissioner has accorded his approval for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) it is observed at page 227 as follows: "It is trite that 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 except its being done in some other manner. It was so held in the following decisions : (i) CIT vs. Naveen Khanna (dt. Nov.18,2009 in ITA 21/Del/2009; (ii) State of Bihar vs JAC Saldanha, AIR 1980 SC 326; and (iii) State of Gujarat vs. Shantilal Mangaldas, AIR 1969 SC 634. Thus, 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 well settled. In Sheo Narain Jaiswal vs ITO (1989) 176 ITR 352(Patna), it was held" "Where the Asse....