2022 (1) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 148 of the said Act and even while passing the order on objections. We would add that there has been total non application of mind even while filing the affidavit in reply to the petition by the same officer - Mr. Shailendra Damodar Suryavanshi, Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai. Perhaps this officer does not know the meaning of the words "application of mind" because he seems to be using this expression without applying his mind. The notice has been issued under Section 148 of the said Act on 31st March 2021 for Assessment Year 2015-2016. The assessment had been completed under Section 143(3) of the said Act on 28th September 2017. Therefore, proviso to Section 147 of the said Act shall apply and respondents will have to make....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roval u/s 151 of the Act ". There is no annexure - 1 mentioned anywhere. Moreover, in the affidavit filed in the Court, even this annexure is missing. This further displays total non application of mind by this officer. 5 Mr. Walve tendered a copy of the approval under Section 151 of the said Act which he had in his file where it says "In view of reasons recorded, I am satisfied that it is a fit case to issue notice u/s. 148 ". This has been signed by PCIT, Mumbai one Anil Kumar. If this PCIT only read the reasons recorded, he would have raised a query how can an entity provide bogus entry to itself. That shows total non application of mind by the said Mr. Anil Kumar as well. We have to also note that in the format for approval under Sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hen he passed the order on objections but he chose to skirt the issue and he went on to say in his affidavit in reply that the objection was duly dealt with by issuing a letter dated 23rd July 2021. In our view, it has not been duly dealt with because this Mr. Suryavanshi had an obligation to deal with the objections raised by petitioner in their objections to reopening. In our view, all these grounds require us to allow the petition in terms of prayer clause - (a), which we hereby do. Prayer clause - (a) reads as under : (a) Declare that the Impugned Notice u/s 148 of the Act dated March 31, 2021 (Exhibit A) and the Impugned Order on objections dated July 23, 2021 (Exhibit B) and the impugned reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-1....