TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....require adjudication. 4. In ground nos. 1 and 2, the assessee has challenged the validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. Whereas, in ground nos. 3, 4 and 6, the assessee has challenged the merits of addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). However, at the threshold, we proceed to deal with the legal issue raised by the assessee in ground no. 1 and 2. 5. For deciding the legal issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2, the relevant facts are, the assessee is a resident company. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 13.10.2004 declaring income of Rs.6715/-. As observed by the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order, the return originally filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and no further notice under section 143(2) was issued during the statutory period. In other words, return of income filed by the assessee was not subjected to any scrutiny assessment. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Delhi that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry amounting to R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty Director Of Income Tax and Others 3. 2015 - TIOL - 2368 - HC - Del - IT Pr. CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd. 4. 2017 - TIOL - 1060 - H C- DEL-IT CIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 5. 2017 - TIOL - 1388 - HC - DEL - IT Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. 6. 2017 - TIOL - 2041 - HC - Del - IT Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT. 7. 2017 - TIOL - 1748 - HC Del - IT Income Tax Officer Vs. R P Foam Home Pvt. Ltd. 8. 2018 - TIOL - 2260 - ITAT - Del - Bhavya Gold Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT 9. 2017 - 87 Taxmann.com 216 (Delhi-Trib.) Pr. CIT vs. Adamine Construction P. Ltd. Approved by Hon,ble High Court in 2018 - 99 Taxmann.com 44 (HC), Approved by Hon,ble Supreme Court in 2018 - 99 Taxmann.com 45 (SC) 10. 2018 - TIOL - 1236 - IT AT - Del ITO vs. XO Infotech Ltd. 11. 2017 - TIOL - 1725 - ITAT - Del Asst. CIT vs. Elegant Security Services Pvt. Ltd. 12. 2018 - TIOL - 564 - ITAT - Del Topline Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT 13. 2017 - 397 - ITR - 0106 (Delhi) Pr. CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd. 14. 2018 - TIOL - 622 - HC - Del - IT Pr. CIT vs. P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uired to be obtained. However, on perusal of the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 and obtaining sanction/approval for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, a copy of which was submitted before us by learned Departmental Representative, it is very much evident that the Assessing Officer has obtained the approval/sanction of the Commissioner of Income Tax on 28.03.2011 for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Therefore, it is very much clear, the sanction/approval obtained by the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act is not by the competent authority in terms with section 151(2) of the Act. In fact, in the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has clearly stated that he has obtained approval/sanction from the Commissioner of Income Tax. 11. It is a well settled legal principle that when a statutory provision requires a certain act to be done by a particular authority in a particular manner, it should be done by that authority in that manner only. Any other authority, be it higher or inferior, cannot substitute the authority prescribed under the statute. The legal principle on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....years from the end of the relevant assessment year, 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." 9. The argument that the approval by an officer superior to the Joint Commissioner will satisfy the requirement of Section 151 (2) of the Act, was categorically negated by this court in the aforementioned decision in SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. (supra) which has been followed in Commissioner of Income Tax-8 v. Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd. (2015) 58 taxmann.com 336 (Del). In SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. (supra), under similar circumstances after noting that the approval had been granted on the file by a superior officer whose 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. Howev....