TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 754
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eard in the matter. 2. That the order dated 31-01-2018 passed u/s 250 of the tax by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to hold that the Appellant Company had withdrawn the argument relating to compliance with the provisions of Section 151 of the Act while initiating notice u/s 147/148 of the Act whereas the fact of the matter is that the Appellant Company had only withdrawn the ground challenging the Ld. Assessing Officer's action u/s 147/148 of the Act and not the issue related to challenge the validity of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act on the ground of inappropriate Section 151 of the Act. 3. That the order dated 31-01-2018 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-31 New Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Learned JCIT, Circle -9(1), New Delhi in passing the order u/s 148 of the Act by not appreciating the facts that the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer was without jurisdiction and bad in law as the notice issued u/s 148 was not in compliance with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld. CIT(A), the appellant assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal, who vide its order dated 25.07.2014 in ITA No.3405/Del/2013, remanded the appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) as under: "Since the Jurisdictional issue is to be first decided and only there after the appeal on merits can be decided in view of the same, we set aside the entire impugned order directing the CIT(A) to first decide the jurisdiction issue and if still so warranted on facts decide the appeal on merit denovo after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard " 3.2 Vide the above-mentioned order, the Tribunal remanded both issues; jurisdictional as well as merit of additions to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the case de-novo. Admittedly, the jurisdictional grounds were withdrawn by the assessee through its counsel during the appellate proceedings against the original assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate this issue in the first round of appellate proceedings. However, the Tribunal, vide its order dated 25.07.2014 in ITA No.3405/Del/2013, revived the jurisdictional issue to be decided first in the remanded appellate proceedings. Thus, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al of any legal ground would not cure the illegality of the order and that was why the Tribunal, vide its order dated 25.07.2014 in ITA No.3405/Del/2013, revived the jurisdictional issue. Thus, the issue of withdrawal of jurisdictional issue did not have any locus standi in the second round of the appellate proceedings and in particular the present appeal. The Ld. AR, drawing our attention to page 28 of the impugned order, submitted that the notice for re-assessment had been undoubtedly issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), New Delhi (below the rank of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax). Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9(1), New Delhi/Assessing Officer ('AO') was required to take administrative approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax as the case was reopened within the period of four years from the end of the relevant AY. However, in the present case, the approval under section 151(2) of the Act of the Commissioner of Income Tax was there instead of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. Accordingly, the Ld. AR contended that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was invalid and beyond jurisdiction. 4.2 The Ld. AR,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.07.2014 in ITA No.3405/Del/2013. Therefore, we are deciding the legal ground of assumption of jurisdiction for reopening the assessment. The main issue in this case revolves around the validity of the reopening under section 147 of the Act. The assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction for reopening the assessment. We take note of the fact that the approval under section 151(2) of the Act has been granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. Such approval is contrary to the provisions of the law. the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghanshyam K. Khabrani [2012] 20 taxmann.com 716/210 Taxman 75 (Mag.) in Writ Petn. No.1246 of 2012 also settled that in context of section 151(2) of the Act that there is no statutory provision under which a power to be exercised by an officer can be exercised by a superior officer. Thus, where in the governing circumstances of the case, sanction was to be accorded by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax cannot step into to play the role of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and accord sanction. The court particularly noted that the Commissioner of Income ....