TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of various cited precedents on issue of validity of approval u/s 151 of the Act incl. Hon'ble Delhi High Court latest decision in case of ESS ADVERTISING 437 ITR 1 and other Jurisdictional Delhi High Court, MP High Court (SLP Dismissed); Orissa High Court cited precedents." 3. With regard to issue of validity of approval u/s 151 of the Act, ld. AR of the assessee's plea is as under :- 1. Brief undisputed facts a) The information was received from ADIT(Inv) II by office of assessee's AO on 31.03.2016 (para 82 page 116 ITAT order) b) Reasons u/s 148(2) were drafted on 31.03.2016 (para 87 page 124) which were sent for sanction u/s 151 to PCIT on 31.03.2016; c) Relevant sanction u/s 151 as reproduced at para 90 page 126/127 is given on 31.03.2016 with only REMARKS "I AM SATISFIED" d) Assessee has relied on jurisdictional Delhi High Court decision in case of ESS ADVERTISING 437 ITR 1 (noted at multiple places in ITAT order) in support of contention that stated sanction u/s 151 is mechanical and invalid (same is nowhere considered in the ITAT order) e) Assessee was only given proforma of sanction u/s 151 in RTI reply and not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....approving impugned Hon'ble Delhi high court decision in case of TIA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD VS ITO W.P.(C) 13903/2018 (26.09.2023) and dismissing revenue SLP by speaking order HELD "In view of the categorical finding recorded in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment and in the facts of the case, no case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed" Relevant extract of Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision "9. On perusal of the impugned order dated 06.12.2018 whereby the objections filed by the petitioner were disposed of, we are unable to find anything contained therein which would answer the poser raised on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Goel, which was that there was no application of mind whatsoever by the PCIT as to whether or not it was a fit case for triggering reassessment proceedings. 10. Mr. Goel goes on to state that this very aspect was also emphasized in the writ petition. For this purpose, our attention has been drawn to paragraph 3.6 of the writ petition, which reads as follows: "3.6 Mechanical recording of reasons is glaring from column no 9 of reason....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 151 to the re-opening under Section 148 is not enough. While the PCCIT is not required to record elaborate reasons, he has to record satisfaction after application of mind. The approval is a safeguard and has to be meaningful and not merely ritualistic or formal. The reasons are the link between material placed on record and the conclusion reached by the authority in respect of an issue, since they help in discerning the manner in which the conclusion is reached by the concerned authority. Our opinion in this regard is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. M.L. Kapoor[AIR 1974 SC 87]. The grant of approval by PCCIT in the printed format without any line of reason does not fulfil the requirement of Section 151 of the Act." 3.3 Sec 151: VINOD KUMAR SOLANKI VS ACIT W.P.(C) 4196/2022 (14.08.2024) "17. It is evident that the approval dated 28.03.2021 is in respect of 111 cases of reassessment. It is a general order of approval for all the 111 cases. There is not even a whisper as to what material had weighed in the grant of approval in the present case. While the PCIT is not required to record elaborate reasons, he has to record ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....incipal Commissioner of Income Tax ["PCIT"] merely penning the words "approved") and iii) PCIT vs Kamal Kapoor ITA 14/2024 order dated 06 March 2024 (here mere word "approved" is not valid sanction u/s 1 3.5 Sec 151 Hon'ble Delhi high court decision in case of Sanjay Kumar vs ACIT 458 ITR 548 (Held "22. The injury to the respondent is compounded by the fact that respondent no. 2 while sanctioning the commencement of reassessment proceedings, has simply rubberstamped the proposal by making the following endorsement: "Yes, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for action under Section 147 of I.T. Act." 23. Given the explanation provided by the petitioner in his reply to the notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Act and in the objections filed by him, this approach certainly does not sit well with us. The courts have repeatedly disapproved of approvals/sanctions granted for the commencement of reassessment proceedings, which are undoubtedly a serious business, by the superior officers without applying their mind to the material on record. 23.1 The following observations made by the Division Bench of this court in Synfonia Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. v Income Tax Officer, Ward 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase be suitably rectified in light of above stated chain of jurisprudence. ON PROPOSITION that subsequent decision of hon'ble jurisdictional high court on the issue /proposition laid down can give rise to mistake apparent from record u/s 254(2) of 1961 Act; reference is made to: Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Suhrid Geigy Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat, (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj). It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it could be said to be "mistake apparent from the record" under Section 254 (2) of the Act and could be corrected by the Tribunal; noted with approval by hon'ble apex court in case of Saurashtrakutch stock exchange 305 ITR 227; also refer same view by hon'ble Gujarat high court in case of CIT vssu bodhcnandra patel (2004) 265 ITR 445; In KilKotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Co. Ltd. v. ITAT, [1988] 174 ITR 579, the Kerala High Court held that an order of assessment based upon an interpretation or application of law which is ultimately found to be wrong in the light of judicial pronouncements r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liance Telecom Limited reported in 133 taxmann.com 41 on 3RD December 2021, he submitted that there is no mistake apparent on record and the plea of the assessee may not be entertained. 6. Considered the rival submissions and material available on record. We observed that the ld. AR brought to our notice page 129 of the Tribunal order from paras 92 to 94. We observed that at Para No. 85 the Bench has recorded the submission of the assessee as under :- "85. Further, the ld. AR argued as to whether when repeated request made from appellant side to share relevant investigation wing information which is made basis to reopen the case as referred in reasons recorded, as obtained by Ld. AO, so as to rebut it, same is categorically denied in final impugned assessment order at point viii page 7 thereof and said information much less its enclosures, is nowhere confronted to assessee despite specific request, is a serious violation of GKN Driveshaft procedure and mandate of sec. 142(3) of the Act? We strongly rely on recent Hon'ble Apex court decision in NDTV case 424 ITR 607 and further recent Delhi C bench decision in Sur Buildcon case dated 15.07.2021 where on same facts, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revenue authorities. Not only that, we have also gone through the satisfaction recorded by the ld. PCIT. The record clearly proves that the entire information has been sent to the ld. PCIT and the ld. PCIT after perusal of the record has accorded the approval and the records have been duly returned. The ld. CIT (A) has sufficient material before him to arrive at a conclusion to accord statutory approval u/s 151(1). The action of the non-application of mind by the ld. PCIT can be upheld only in cases where the reasons recorded are wrong or the statutory provisions invoked are incorrect or where there is no nexus between the material available and the satisfaction and belief with regard to the escapement of income is incorrectly derived. This is not a case where the ld. PCIT has given a mechanical approval disregarding the factual inaccuracies recorded by the Assessing Officer. The copy of the bank statement bearing A/c No. 0419073000000213 maintained with South Indian Bank, Gurgaon and bank A/c No. 358073000002431 maintained at Chitranjan Park Branch are also a part of the record before the ld. PCIT which has been duly considered along with the reasoning of the AO on the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TR 427 Mumbai bench E ITAT decision in case of Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd. para 30 of the decision order dated 24.05.2021 (Sec 2(12A) analysed in detail Chennai bench D ITAT decision in case of GSNR Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd. order dated 09.06.2021 sec. 2(12a) analysed in length Hon'ble Allahabad high court decision in case of Sarita Devi 407 ITR 254" 10. While dealing the issue of section 68 elaborately as under :- "....secondly, addition u/s 68 has rightly been made as assessee has failed to offer any explanation with regard to nature and source of credit in his bank account and primary burden case upon the assessee for proving the credits has not been discharged either before AO or ld. CIT (A) or before us. Accordingly, the action u/s 147/148 as well as the addition made u/s 68 is hereby affirmed." 11. The issue raised by the assessee which was recorded at Para No. 61 was not addressed. 12. Further with regard to approval u/s 151 of the Act, the sanctioning authority had merely recorded, 'Yes I am satisfied' and this issue under consideration is a debatable issue and after considering the submissions of the assessee, there is no specif....