TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tution of India challenging reassessment notice dated 12th April 2023 for Assessment Year 2019-2020 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and order dated 12th April 2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. 3. It is petitioner's case that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was wholly without jurisdiction as it does not meet the pre-requisite conditions stipulated under the amended scheme of reassessment. It is also petitioner's case that the notice under Section 148A(b) and order under Section 148A(d) of the Act suffered from total non-application of mind. So also, the approval granted under Section 151 of the Act by the specified authority reflects non application of mind. 4. Petitioner, an indivi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount of Rs. 5 lakhs is factually incorrect because petitioner has only been allowed to claim as deduction an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. This itself indicates non application of mind. 7. Mr. Padvekar submitted that one of the main grievance of petitioner is that the approving authority has granted approval for issuance of the impugned notice under Section 148 and order under Section 148A(d) of the Act in a mechanical manner. Mr. Padvekar submitted that while granting approval under Section 151 of the Act, it was obligatory on the approving authority to verify the material available on record. The purpose of Section 151 of the Act is to introduce a supervisory check over the work of the Assessing Officer particularly, in the context of reop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce the sanction granted under Section 151 of the Act did not have any digital signature of the sanctioning authority, the document was not valid. Consequently, the notice issued, relying on this sanction, is non-est. 9. Mr. Padvekar further submitted that in the approval sought under Section 151 of the Act, the person submitting for approval in box 8 states that the approval was needed for "order under Section 148A(d) required for issuance of notice under Section 148". In box 9 - Time limit for current proceedings covered under, it says "u/s 149(1)(b) - for more than 3 years but not more than 10 years" and this is the document which has been approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai - 4 (PCIT). Mr. Padvekar submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ternative remedies. Moreover, Mr. Subir Kumar submitted that no digital signature was required because the approval granted under Section 151 of the Act was a system generated document and also contained DIN number. 12. We are not at all impressed with the stand taken by respondents. In paragraphs 14 and 16 of the petition, petitioner has specifically raised these grounds. Paragraphs 14 and 16 read as under : 14. The Petitioner states that the Approving Authority has granted the approval for issued of impugned Notice under Section 148 and Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act in a mechanical manner. The Petitioner states that while granting approval under Section 151 of the Act it is obligatory on the approving authority to verify the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../03/2023 which is under a period of 3 years from the end of the A.Y. 2019-20. The Petitioner further states that if the reopening would be happening under section 149(1)(b) of the Act then the Respondent No. 2 would not be the appropriate authority to grant such approval as the approval should have been taken from Pr. CCIT. Thus, there is total non-application of mind Respondent No. 1 while making granting approval under section 151 of the Act. 13. In the affidavit in reply, there is no denial. We would say even in the affidavit in reply, there is non-application of mind in as much as the affiant admits that while issuing notice for reopening of assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Princ....