TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 519
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Petitioner has approached this Court in our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deduction under Section 80G of the Act where only 50% deduction is allowable. Therefore, the alleged 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 in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form by that authority. Mr. Padvekar submitted that since 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble as it is premature and petitioner can file a reply to the notice and take all grounds and petitioner has alternative 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 stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 149(1)(b) - more than 3 years but not more than 10 years, whereas the Notice under section 148A(b) has been issued on 27/03/2023 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had only read and applied his mind to what is stated in box 9, i.e., the time limit for current proceedings covered under is stated to be under Section 149(1)(b), or he would have sent it back to respondent no. 1 refusing to grant approval. It also goes to say that even respondent no. 1, who has sought approval, has not applied his mind. We are of the opinion that if only respondent No. 2 had read the report carefully, he would have never come to the conclusion that there is any material before him to treat it as a fit case to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act or pass order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The safeguards provided in Sections 148 and 151 were lightly treated by respondent nos. 1 and respondent No. 2. Both of them ap....