2017 (9) TMI 120

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rector of Income Tax (hereinafter the Assessing Officer or 'AO') under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act') seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06. The writ petition also challenges an order dated 25th January, 2013 passed by the AO rejecting the objections raised by the Petitioner to the reopening of the assessment. 2. On 5th March 2013, while issuing notice in this petition, the Court directed that the proceedings pursuant to the impugned order shall remain stayed. 3. One of the grounds urged in the present petition is that since the original assessment was processed under Section 143 (1) of the Act, and since the reopening was after the expiry of four years from the end of the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e DIT. The next signature on the file is that of the DIT who states in a single word "Approved". 6. From the above noting on the file it is seen that the Addl. DIT merely "put up for approval" the file and did not himself accord approval of the AO's proposal for reopening the assessment for AY 2005-06. 7. It is contended by Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Department, that when the Addl. DIT recorded the words "put up for approval" he, in fact, should be understood to have applied his mind, approved the note of the AO, and only thereafter put up the note for further approval to the DIT. He further sought to explain that it is only because the original records were not traceable that this course was adopted ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... approval had been sought, the court observed as under: "4. The aforesaid noting in the file does not reflect what learned counsel for the Revenue argued. In the first instance, it would be seen that the AO had specifically sought the approval of the Commissioner only. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Joint Commissioner/Additional Commissioner had granted the approval. Further, no doubt, the file was routed through Additional Commissioner. However, he also, in turn forwarded the same to the Commissioner by giving the following endorsement: "CIT may kindly accord sanction." 5. It is clear that the Additional CIT did not apply his mind or gave any sanction. Instead, he requested Commissioner to accord the approval. It, thus, can....