TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act on 30.03.2022 are illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and barred by time limitation. 2. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the notice dated 30.03.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction as there are no valid reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment in the case of the Appellant. The purported reasons are recorded without any independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO') and are based on borrowed satisfaction. Hence, the proceedings under section 148 of the Act are illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reasons recorded are not in consonance with the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Central Board of Direct Taxes and such the notice dated 30.03.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act on the basis of such reasons is illegal, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the notice dated 30.03.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act is il....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... natural justice as the material based on which the impugned additions are made as well as reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the Appellant. The Appellant was also precluded from cross examining the statement of Sh. Bajrang Lal Periwal which purportedly suggests that income in the case of the Appellant has escaped assessment. Hence proceedings under section 148/147 of the Act initiated via notice dated 30.03.2021 as well as the Assessment Order dated 30.03.2022 ought to be vitiated on this ground alone. 11. That in view of the facts and circumstances and in law, the additions made by the AO vide order dated 30.03.2022 as upheld by the NFAC/CIT(A) vide its order dated 09.02.2024 are illegal, bad in law and liable to be deleted. 12. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO as well as NFAC/CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 68 of the Act are not applicable and have been illegally and wrongly invoked in the instant case. 13. Without prejudice to the above, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO as well as NFAC/CIT(A) have grossly erred in stating that the Appellant has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-61 New Delhi sent a common letter for 30 cases dated 26/27-03-2021 for approval u/s 151 of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14 to 2015-16 to ACIT on 26/27-03-2021; the ACIT also granted approval for all the assessment years from A.Y. 2013-14 to 2015-16 by a common letter dated 28-03-2021. It is further submitted that the approval granted by the ACIT by the common order without application of mind and mechanical in nature. The ACIT in its approval has failed to mention the assessment year wise income returned and assessed by the AO. It is further submitted that it is clearly establish the approval has been granted mechanical manner without verifying the assessment record. It is also submitted that multiple approval has been granted by a single order. In support of his contention, Ld AR for the assessee has relied upon the following cases:- 1. Vinod Kumar Solanki Vs. Assistant Commissioner of IT Circle -61-1, Delhi & Ors. 2. PCIT-7, Vs. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. 3. PCIT, Central Circle -02 vs MDLR Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. 4. Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 5. Sherry Clothing & Designs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... application of mind had arisen for our consideration in the case of The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. (2024) SCC OnLine Del 1685, wherein, we had held as follows:- "13. The primary grievance raised in the instant appeal relates to the manner of recording the approval granted by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Act for reopening of assessment proceedings as per Section 148 of the Act. xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 17. Thus, the incidental question which emanates at this juncture is whether simply penning down "Yes" would suffice requisite satisfaction as per Section 151 of the Act. Reference can be drawn from the decision of this Court in N. C. Cables Ltd., wherein, the usage of the expression "approved" was considered to be merely ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as under:- "11. Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression "approved" says noth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on made on behalf of the respondents that the 'rubber stamp' reason given mechanically for the supersession of each officer does not amount to 'reasons for the proposed supersession'. The most that could be said for the stock reason is that it is a general description of the process adopted in arriving at a conclusion. 28.... If that had been done, facts on service records of officers considered by the Selection Committee would have been correlated to the conclusions reached. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable."(emphasis supplied)." 19. In the case of Chhugamal Rajpal, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court refused to consider the affixing of signature alongwith the noting "Yes" as valid approval and had held as under:- "5. --- Further the report ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eas Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, the same was a case where the satisfaction was specifically appended in the proforma in terms of the phrase"Yes, I am satisfied". Moreover, paragraph 16 of the said decision distinguishes the approval granted using the expression "Yes" by citing Central India Electric Supply, which has already been discussed above. The decision in the case of Experion Developers P. Ltd. would also not come to the rescue of the Revenue as the same does not deal with the expression used in the instant appeal at the time of granting of approval. 23. Therefore, it is seen that the PCIT has failed to satisfactorily record its concurrence. By no prudent stretch of imagination, the expression "Yes" could be considered to be a valid approval. In fact, the approval in the instant case is apparently akin to the rubber stamping of "Yes" in the case of Central India Electric Supply." 19. The decision in "Pioneer" case was followed by us in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 02 vs. M/s. MDLR Hotels Pvt. Ltd. [ITA 593/2023], wherein, the Competent Authority had granted approval in terms of Section 153-D of the Act to as many as ....