TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 679
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment proceedings, initiated by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 29.03.2014, since the assesses company was already assessed earlier u/s 143(3) vide order dated 22.12.2009 and the procedure for issuing this notice u/s 148 as contained in proviso to section 151(1) entailed sanction of either the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner prior to issuance of the notice but the sanction of the Joint Commissioner of Income tax was incorrectly taken. 2. Because the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held in Dr. Shashi Kant Garg, vs Commissioner Of Income-tax (2006) 203 CTR 75 / 2006 285 ITR 158 that a notice issued u/s 148 without obtaining the prescribed sanction of the Chief....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f reopening. 3. Before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) and the reopening is after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year, therefore, the proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 151 is applicable in this case and thereby the Assessing Officer cannot issue a notice u/s. 148 without prior sanction of Pr. CCIT/CCIT/PCIT /CIT as case may be. Thus, ld. AR of the assessee contended that the reopening is not validit when the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 only after taking sanction of JCIT. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions: 1. CIT (Central-1) vs. Aquatic Remedies (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 151(2) comes in operation which requires the satisfaction and approval from JCIT only. 6. I have considered the rival submissions as well as material placed on record. There is no dispute that the original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 22.12.2009 and thereafter the notice u/s. 148 was issued on 29.03.2014. Thus, the reopening in the case in hand is after four years from the end of the assessment year. It is also not in dispute that the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s. 148 after recording the reasons and obtaining the satisfaction of JCIT. Section 151 contemplates the mandatory condition for taking the prior sanction/satisfaction of the higher authorities before issuing the notice u/s. 148 in different class of matter.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself." 7. Thus, Section 151 provides the condition of satisfaction of the higher authorities before issuing the notice u/s. 148 and also divides the cases in broad to two categories viz (i). The reopening of the cases where the original assessment is completed u/s. 143(3) as covered under sub Section (1) of Section 151 and (ii) the case where the original assessment was not completed u/s. 143(3) as covered under sub section (2) of Section 151 of the Act. The proviso to sub Section (1) further sub categories the cases....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the end of assessment year and the original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) then irrespective of the rank of the Assessing Officer who has reopened the assessment it is mandatory condition that satisfaction of Pr. CCIT/CCIT/PCIT/CIT is required. The ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue against the assessee by holding as under: "Appellant is taking shelter of the Proviso to S. 151 which say that 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in view of the ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of Section 151 of the Act as considered and interpreted by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliable Finhold Ltd. (Supra). It is pertinent to note that subsequently decided provision is amended by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015 and language of the amended provision is made more clear and an ambiguous as well as simpler than the earlier provision. In the new substituted provision of Section 151(1) it is mandatory requirement for issuing notice u/s 148 after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year that unless the Pr. CCIT/CCIT/PCIT/CIT is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is fit case for issue such notice. Therefore, ....