TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account of non-declaration of income from house property and made addition of Rs. 7,30,000/- under the head 'income from other sources' as against claim of assessee of agriculture income totaling to Rs. 17 lacs. The Assessing Officer passed the re-assessment order under section 147/143(3) of the Act dated 26.12.2007. 3. The assessee challenged the re-opening of the assessment as well as additions before ld. CIT(Appeals), however, appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. 4. The assessee in the present appeal has challenged the re-opening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act and additions of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 18,555/- and Rs. 7,30,000/-. 5. The assessee also raised additional ground of appeal "That the ld. CIT (A) has wrongly upheld the issuance of notice under section 148 of the IT Act". The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue relates to challenge to the re-opening of the assessment under section 147 of Income Tax Act which is already challenged in the present appeal. He has, therefore, requested that since it is a legal issue therefore, same may be admitted and relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 148 of the Act and for obtaining approval of Additional CIT and submitted that Addl. CIT has granted his satisfaction on the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer on 26.03.2008 whereas notice under section 148 of the Act have already been issued on 27.03.2007. Therefore, it is void and nullity and no valid notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that reasons under section 148 of the Act have been recorded by Shri Amrik Singh, ACIT, Circle-1(1) Chandigarh whereas for obtaining approval of Additional CIT, the same have been forwarded by Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, ACIT, Central Circle-2, Chandigarh after issuing notice under section 148. Therefore, the issuance of notice under section 148 itself is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 8(ii) On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon order of authorities below and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. 291 ITR 500. 9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Assessing Officer recorded reasons for re-opening of the assessment, copy of which is filed at page 67 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T for assessment year under appeal which is forwarded by Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, ACIT CC-2, Chandigarh on which Addl. CIT Central, Chandigarh recorded his satisfaction that it is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148 of the Act on 26.03.2008. 10(i) Section 151 of Income Tax Act reads as under : Sanction for issue of notice (1) In a case where an assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or section 147 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner (or Deputy Commissioner), unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice]: Provided that, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2) In a case other than a case failing under sub- section (1), no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the legislature has specifically assigned jurisdiction to a particular authority under the Act to grant sanction, then, if all other conditions are satisfied, the sanction has to be granted by that very authority. This function cannot be delegated to any other authority. It is the legal duty cast upon that authority to perform the said function. If that authority fails to perform his legal functions and same is performed by other authority, then it goes to the very root of the proper assumption of jurisdiction by the authority which was required to take that sanction". 12. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs SPL'S Siddhartha Ltd. (supra) held as under : "2. As per the aforesaid provision, it is only Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner, which can grant the approval. The argument of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the approval was not granted by the Joint Commissioner. Instead, it was taken from the CIT, Delhi Ill, New Delhi, who was not competent to approve even when he was a higher Authority inasmuch as Section 151 of the Act specifically mentions Joint Commissioner as the Competent Authority. This contention of the respondent-assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a person appointed to be a Joint Commissioner of Income Tax or an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under sub-Section (1) of Section 117. "Commissioner" means a person appointed to be a Commissioner of Income Tax under sub-Section(l) of Section 117." 7. Section 116 of the Act also 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 powers given to them in specified circumstances. If powers conferred on a particular authority are arrogated by other authority without mandate of law, it will create chaos in the administration of law and hierarchy of administration will mean nothing. Satisfaction of one authority cannot be substituted by the satisfaction of the other authority. 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 expect its being done in some other manner. It was so held in the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Naveen Khanna (dated 18.11.2009 in ITA No.21/2009 (DHC). (ii) State of Bihar Vs. J.A.C. Said anna & Ors. AI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all cases where re-assessment is proposed, the approval of the highest authorities such as the Principal Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner, is essential and that in the facts of this case such authorization had, in fact, been secured prior to issuance of notice. 5. Section 151 reads as follows:- "151. Sanction for issue of notice.- (1) In a case where an assessment under subsection (3) of section 143 or section 147 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice : Provided that, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, ITA 158/2015 Page 3 on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. (2) In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. This court is of the opinion that accepting the Revenue's position would result in that consequence. The Court also invokes the principle enunciated by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad V. Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 : AIR 193 that if the statute mandates that something be done in a particular manner, it should be in that manner or not at all. In this case, since the original assessment was completed "other than" the eventualities contemplated in Section 151(1), i.e. it was processed under Section 143(1). Thus, clearly Section 151(2) applied. 9. For the above reasons, the Court holds that there is no infirmity in the order of the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is therefore dismissed." 12(ii) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dhadda Exports Vs ITO (supra) held as under : "When particular authority had been designated to record his/her satisfaction on any particular issue, then it was that authority alone who should apply his/her independent mind to record his/her satisfaction and satisfaction so recorded should be 'independent' and not 'borrowed' or 'dictated' satisfaction." 12(iii) Hon'ble....