TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda erred on facts and law in upholding the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 on account of the fact that the proceedings had been initiated only for the purpose of verification regarding source of investment of cash deposits in the bank which is against the settled principles of law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda erred on facts and law in upholding the initiation of proceedings u/s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 by the AO because there was no recording of satisfaction by the Pr. CIT, as provided u/s. 151(1), on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda erred on facts and law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 63,33,000/- which had been made by the AO for not explaining the source of cash deposited in the bank although it had been explained that the cash deposited in the saving fund account belonged to Sh. Baljinder Singh. The explanation filed during the course of assessment proceedings has been rejected without rebutting the same. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....460/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the AO, the CIT(A) upheld the addition and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, the ld. Authorized Representative (for short "A.R") for the assessee sought for admission of the copies of the sale deeds and the bank a/c of Sh. Baljinder Singh (supra) as additional evidence. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as Sh. Baljinder Singh (supra) had during the course of the assessment proceedings declined to furnish copies of the sale deeds a/w his bank a/c, and the same despite specific requests of the assessee before the A.O were not made available to him, therefore, the assessee was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause from producing/filing the said documents which have a strong bearing on the adjudication of the issues involved in the present appeal in the course of the proceedings before the lower authorities. Backed by his aforesaid claim, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the said documents in all fairness and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 1185 & 1186/Del/2009; (iv). N.C. Cables Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 649 (Del); and (v). Shri. Krishan Gopal. Prop. Kay Pee Lock Vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), Delhi (Delhi). In the backdrop of his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the ld. AR that as the approval in the case of the assessee was granted by the sanctioning authority in a mechanical manner, i.e., without application of mind, therefore, the assessment framed by the AO u/s. 143(3)/147, dated 19/12/2016 could not be sustained for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction on his part. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short "D.R.") relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the sanctioning authority, i.e., the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax was at Column 13 of the form of approval only required to state as to whether he was satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for the issue of notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, therefore, by stating "Yes" he had duly expressed that he was satisfied with the same. It was submitted by the ld. DR that as the AO had validly assumed jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid reason that Section 151 requires an officer of the rank of a Joint Commissioner of Income-tax to oversee the decision of the AO where the return originally filed was assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, and further, in a case where such reopening of an assessment is sought to be made after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, then, the said obligation is shifted on a superior officer as therein contemplated. In our considered view, as the reopening of a case results to disturbing the finality of a concluded assessment, therefore, the authorities specified for granting of approval u/s. 151 of the Act remain under a statutory obligation of clearly applying their mind on the "reasons to believe" recorded by the AO and, only after being satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, approve the same. In fact, the approving authority in discharge of his aforesaid statutory duty is obligated to record his satisfaction as regards the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening the case of the assessee, in a manner, which would reveal that as per him it is a fit case for issuance of Notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In our c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d-2, Kaithal, the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and the relevant findings have been given in para 14 to 14.4 which read as under: 14. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case it is noticed that the A.O. obtained the approval of the JCIT before issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act, performa copy of which is placed at page no. 1 of the assessee's paper book, in the said Performa for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act and for obtaining the approval of the Ld. JCIT, it has been mentioned in column no. 11 as under: "Yes it is approved for 148 action" Sd/- (Umesh Takyar) Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1, Jalandhar From the aforesaid approval it is clear that the JCIT, Range-1, Jalandhar recorded the satisfaction in a mechanical manner without application of mind. He accorded the sanction for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act in a mechanical manner. 14.1 On a similar issue the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Ladhuram Laxmi narayan Vs. ITO, Additional 102 ITR 595 (supra) held a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of Shri Tek Chand Vs ITO, Ward-2, Kaithal held as under: 14.1 The A.O. obtained the approval of the PR. CIT before issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act. The proposal dt. 11/03/2016 seeking the approval for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, by the A.O. is placed at page no. 2 & 3 of the assessee's paper book. While giving the approval the Ld. PR. CIT, Karnal recorded as under: "Yes, satisfied, it is a fit case for issue of notice under section 148" Sd/- Pr. CIT, Karnal 14.2 From the aforesaid approval, it is clear that the Ld. Pr. CIT recorded satisfaction in the mechanical manner, without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. On an identical issue the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Jabalpur Vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. reported at (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 390 by following its own decision in the case of Arjun Singh Vs. ADIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (M.P) held as under: 7. We have considered the rival contentions and we find that while according sanction, the Joint Commissioner, Income Tax has only recorded so "Yes, I am satisfied". In the case of Arjun Singh (supra), the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present case also since the A.O. reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Act by issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act, on the basis of mechanical approval, without applying his mind, therefore the said approval was not valid and consequently the reopening of the assessment on the basis of said approval was not valid. We therefore quash the same. Since, we have decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee therefore no finding is given on the other grounds raised by the assessee on merit. 13.1 Since the facts of the present case are identical to the facts involved in the aforesaid referred to case of Shri Satnam Singh, Jalandhar Vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jalandhar in ITA No. 579/ASR/2019 for the A.Y. 2013-14, so respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dt. 29/06/2021 the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act by issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act is quashed. Since we have decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee therefore no finding is given on the other grounds raised by the assessee on merit." Also, we find that a similar view had been taken by the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Shri. Tek Chand Vs. Th....