TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s. 147/148 are without jurisdiction, without application of mind, unwarranted and mechanical and unsustainable. 2 That the Ld. A.O., since failed in adjudicating all objections against reopening proceedings, properly, as per law and in totality and as per the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N Drive Shafts, hence consequential proceedings and impugned asstt. is illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the approval u/s. 151 is fatally defective, mechanical and without application of mind which makes the whole proceedings without jurisdiction, illegal and unwarranted. 4. That under the facts and circumstances, addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- u/s. 68 for the share capital/share....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....30,00,000/-, the amt. of total sale consideration received of both the shares, although there is no material and evidence for the same." 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed its return of income on 25/09/2010 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 declaring Nil income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and no scrutiny assessment was made. Subsequently, Assessing Officer received an information from the office of the Director of Income Tax (Investigation-II) Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi vide letter dated 12/03/2013 with an information that search operation was carried out in the case of Sh. Surendra Kumar Jan group of cases (herein after known as Entry Operator). On verification/enquiry of various documents seized during t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raised the several grounds objecting to the reopening of the assessment jurisdiction and merits of the case. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, both on jurisdictional as well as merit, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed various grounds raised by the assessee by observing as under: "4.4 Therefore, from the above details, it is noted that the AO has not acted mechanically before framing the reasons to believe. He has applied his mind by considering all the information before him and then has taken the approval of the higher authorities as required u/s 151 of the Act before issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. He has not acted under the borrowed belief or under the directions. In the information there is specific details of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvestigations and should have drawn conclusions as at this stage of proceedings it is not relevant. The important question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a belief is necessity which definitely there was in this case. Whether or not the material would conclusively establish the escapement is not important. This aspect has to be examined subsequently in the reassessment proceedings. It is noted that the AO has applied his mind to the information independently to arrive at the belief on the basis of material which was available with him. 4.5 In view of the above facts and discussion, it is held that the A.O. has validly assumed jurisdiction u/s 148 of the Act by recording the reasons to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed from the record that Assessing Officer has received the approval from the PCIT-7 for reopening of the assessment on 28/03/2017 and Ld. PCIT in point No.13 mentioned that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 by observing that "Yes I am satisfied". At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR brought to our notice the case laws in particular PCIT vs. Pioneer Town Planners (P.) Ltd. [2024] taxmann.com 652, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing that PCIT had merely written 'yes' without discussion, specifically noting his approval, such approval could not be considered to be a valid approval. And further in the case of Safonia T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty. The commissioner is required to apply his mind to the proposal put up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the Assessing Officer. That power cannot be exercised casually and in a routine manner. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court quashed the notice, since there was no proper application of mind by the Addl.CIT. 11. I find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. N.C. Cables Lid., while deciding an identical issue has held that section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the CIT, who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice has to apply his mind and form an opinion. Mere appending of the expression 'approved' says nothing. It is not as if the commis....