2024 (6) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) has erred in overlooking that Shri Sandeep Bajaj has holds 60.87% shares of M/s Sampark Laminators Pvt. Ltd. and 45.79% of M/s Jupiter Laminators Pvt. Ltd.? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in overlooking that the assessee holds more than 10% of voting power in M/s Sampark Laminators Pvt. Ltd. and also entitled to more than 20% of income in M/s Jupiter Laminators Pvt. Ltd.? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in overlooking that M/s Jupiter Laminators Pvt. Ltd. does not hold any shares in M/s Sampark Laminators Pvt. Ltd., whereas Sh. Sandeep Bajaj is a common majority shareholder in both the transacting parties? 5. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in relying upon case laws without appreciating that the facts of present case are distinguished from the facts of relied upon cases. 6. (a) The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal." 3. The asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a fit case for the issue of such notice. These are some in-built safeguards to prevent arbitrary exercise of power by an assessing officer to fiddle with the completed assessment. The jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of United Electrical Co. (P) Ltd. vs CIT (2012) 258 ITR 317 has held that the power vested in the Joint Commissioner to grant or not to grant approval is coupled with a duty. The Joint 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. The said power cannot be exercised casually and in a routine matter. In the appellant's case before your honour, the JCIT has not applied his mind. The JCIT has given the approval in a mechanical manner without verifying / examining the materials relied upon by the A.O. for recording the purported reasons. The JCIT has just written "Yes, I am Satisfied" at the proposal prepared by the A.O. and accorded satisfaction u/s 151(2) for reopening the assessment. It is respectfully submitted that by merely stating "Yes, I am Satisfied" at the proposal prepared by A.O. cannot be termed as a sanction/ approval as required u/s 15....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... High Court. - M/S. Madhu Apartment Private Limited Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward-16 (1), New Delhi. 2021 (2) TMI 709-ITAT Delhi. - ACIT Circle 45(1) v. Kamal Kapoor ITA No. 1167/Del/2016 ITAT, Delhi The Ld. AR has further relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:- * The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 Versus Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. [2024] taxmann.com 652 - Delhi High Court * M/S Raghav Technology (P) Ltd. Versus ITO Ward-20 (4) New Delhi 1064/Del/2019-ITAT Delhi * Synfonia Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-22 (4) [2021] 435 ITR 642 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR objected to the above submissions and brought to our notice page- 6 of the PB wherein Ld. JCIT has approved the proceedings u/s 151 of the Act by observing "Yes, I am satisfied" and accordingly to Ld. DR submitted that it clearly shows, Ld. JCIT has applied his mind, therefore, it cannot be said that it was approved mechanically. It has been argued by the Ld. DR that the sanctioning authority is not required to give elaborate reasons for his satisfaction. For this proposition, he relied upon the following case laws: - -PCIT V Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the effect that "it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. "In the present case of the assessee no such satisfaction has been recorded and the JCIT has merely written- Yes, I am satisfied. We also find that in the case of Raghav Technology (P) Ltd. V ITO ITA No. 1064/Del/2019 ITAT Delhi the approval was granted u/s 151 by writing- Yes, I am satisfied i.e same as in the case of the assessee before us. The coordinate bench of the tribunal vide order dated 30/04/2024 after considering the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pioneer Town Planners (supra), held as under: - 9. Considered 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 PCTT 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 tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ut up to him for approval in the light of the material relied upon by the AO. The said power cannot be exercised casually and in a routine manner. It has been held by Hon'ble high court that We are constrained to observe that in the present case, there has been no application of mind by the Addl. CIT before granting the approval. (Para 19). In Svitzer Hazira v. ACIT (441 ITR 19) (Bom), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that approval/sanction granted u/s 151 by writing - "Yes, I am satisfied "cannot be held to be a valid approval/sanction. -The Hon'ble Madya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Goyanka Line & Chemical Ltd (2-15) 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP) has held that "Yes, I am Satisfied" cannot be held to be valid approval/sanction. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. N.C. Cables Ltd. [2017]391 ITR 11, 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 commissioner has to record elaborate ....