AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....35/PUN/2024. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of extracting cotton seed wash oil and trading edible oil, oil cake, cotton seed, wheat, Jwari, Soyabean, Toor, Chana, etc., through its proprietorship, "M/s Jaju Industries". The assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 10.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.13,77,900/-. The case was reopened u/s 148 of the IT Act based on the ground that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.55,30,281/- in his bank account maintained with Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. during the financial year 2015-16. Considering this information, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....FAC adjudicated only additional ground no.2 and allowed the appeal of the assessee and ground nos.1 to 7 and additional ground no.1 were not adjudicated having been rendered academic since the appeal was already allowed on additional aground no.2. It is this order against which the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal as well as the assessee has also filed cross objection raising as many as 7 grounds. 4. First we shall take up cross objection filed by the assessee for adjudication. C.O. No.35/PUN/2024 - By Assessee : 5. There is a delay of 61 days in filing of the above cross objection before this Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In this regard,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee was decided on additional ground no.2 and, therefore, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not adjudicated all other grounds including ground no.2 raised before him by the assessee. Now, before us Ld. AR of the assessee has raised 7 ground in his cross objection including ground no.1 which was also raised before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC as ground no.2 in the memo of appeal Form No.35. In this regard, Ld. AR further submitted that ground no.1 raised in the cross objection is a legal ground which reads as under:- "1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order issued under section 148A(b) of the Act and notice issued under section 148 of the Act are bad in law as the AO has not taken prior approval of the appropriate specifie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year.]" 10. From perusal of the above section, it is crystal clear that if the case is reopened within 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval u/s 151(i) is to be obtained from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and if the case is being reopened after 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval u/s 151(ii) is required to be obtained from Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. In the instant case in hand, we find that the period involved is assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29/2024) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has continuously emphasized the necessity for obtaining approval from the specified authority as mandated under the amended provisions of the IT Act. Ld. Counsel of the assessee further relied on the judgement passed in the case of Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2)(1), Mumbai (WP No.4888 of 2022) dated 25.08.2023 wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under :- "As held by this court in J. M. Financials (Supra), Sidhmicro Equities (P) Ltd. (Supra) and confirmed by the Apex Court that any notice issued without the sanction of the correct sanctioning authority will be invalid. This court in Godrej Industries Limited v. DCIT 16 has held that an assessment can be reo....