TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on and various other reasons (grounds), against the provisions and procedure as per law and further contrary to the real facts of the case hence all the consequent notices as well as the subsequent proceedings invalid, illegal and bad in law hence liable to be quashed. 2. No Satisfaction of competent authority The impugned order u/s 147/144 dated 30/11/2017, as well as the action taken u/s 147/148 are bad in law, illegal, invalid, void ab initio on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, without proper approval and satisfaction of higher authorities u/s 151 of the Act and also barred by limitation and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed." 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,15,829/- made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged Un-explained Expenditure on purchase of immovable property by taking the view that assessee purchased an immovable property and did not file his Income Tax Return for that year therefore source of Purchase of said immovable property remains unverified hence entire amount is being treated as unexplained expenditure, and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt notices as well as the subsequent proceedings invalid, illegal and bad in law hence liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the Penalty of Rs. 10,15,784/- made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged Un explained Expenditure on purchase of immovable property and on account of alleged Un explained receipts as credited in his bank account only on the basis of AIR/ITS without providing him opportunity of being heard and also erred without bringing any cogent material in support of his contention and without bringing corroborative evidence and without considering the materials and explanations available on records in their true perspective and sense. Hence the Penalty so imposed by Ld. AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) is being contrary to the provisions of the law and facts of the case therefore the same may kingly be deleted in toto, 3. Appeal dismissed for non-attendance :- Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. NFAC has grossly erred in deciding the appeal ex- parte, without providing sufficient opportunity to appellant, here the Ld. NFAC ought to have decided....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on record. It is noted from the assessment order that the AO on the basis of information available in ITS of the assessee made two additions i.e. Rs. 50,15,829/- and Rs. 13,36,329/- by observing at para 3 & 4 of his assessment order dated 30-11- 2017 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. However, in first appeal, the ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-appearance and not controverting the order of the AO. The moot question raised by the ld AR of the assessee is that order passed by the AO is illegal and bad in law and it lacks jurisdictional error on the point of no satisfaction of competent authority. The Bench has meticulously gone through the orders of the lower authorities and taken in the consideration the oral arguments advanced by the ld. AR of the assessee encountering the assessment order as invalid and beyond jurisdiction. It is noted on perusal of the reasons recorded and approval u/s 151 by the competent authority indicates that Pr. CIT has not applied his mind on the reasons recorded by lower authorities and he has only expressed or mentioned 'Yes' on the reason forwarded (PBP-5). It is worthwhile to mention that as per decisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and their reasons are different. Hence in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case the action taken u/s 148 of the Act and consequent proceedings needs to be quashed for which we rely on the following judgements. (1) Shri Satyanarayan Bairwa vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Jaipur ITA No. 867 & 869 JP/2018, dated 15/09/2021 (Jaipur ITAT), relevant part of judgement is as follows; "19. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. From perusal of the record, we observed that the A.O. has reopened the case of the assessee for escaping the income of Rs. 1,15,00,500/- on account of cash deposit in his bank account and assessee has not filed his return of income and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 29.03.2016 after recording reasons that income of assessee had escaped assessment in the meaning u/s 147 of the Act. Thereafter the AO framed assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by making addition of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- and the ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of AO. Before us the ld. A/R has drawn our attention to the reasons recorded and satisfaction of the Pr. CIT and Addl. CIT placed at page ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or there was no original letter or documents of approval. Further the name of the assessee was at Sr. 46 out of 56 assessee's and even there was no tick on the name of the assessee in the approval list, which creates a doubt that the approval has been received before the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act as the approval letter lying on the file after issuance of the notice u/s 148 or not before or attached with the notice u/s 148 and may reach in the office of the AO after 31.03.2016. Thus, in our view, approval u/s 151 cannot be given of all the 56 assessee's in a single documents, as all assessee's are the independent and separate also the reason recorded are different in each case and it is not possible that there shall be same reasons. Looking to these facts and record it is also held that the procedures and way of approval and satisfaction is not proper. Here AO initiated proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 148 on basis of information furnished and CIT gave approval without applying his mind in slipshod manner. As approval/sanction given by CIT was without recording his own independent satisfaction as noted above, therefore the reopening was not sustainable as per above ....