AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner that in the facts of the present case, since the notice was issued on 30.03.2021, the unamended provisions of Section 151 would apply and the authority granting approval for issuance of the notice under Section 148 would have to be the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax. However, admittedly in the facts of the present case, it is the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax who has granted the approval for issuance of notice under Section 148. This is the short point on which the above impugned notice is challenged in the above Writ Petition. 3. At the outset, we must mention that the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021 is issued within a period of four years from the end of the A.Y. 2015-16 after taking into consideration the provisions of the Taxation And Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (for short "TOLA"). It is not in dispute that this has been so held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal [(2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC)]. 4. Section 151 (as it stood then) stipulated that no notice shall be issued under Section 148 by an Assessing Officer after the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity to grant the approval would be the authority mentioned under Section 151(2), namely, the Jt. Commissioner. However, it is the contention of the Revenue that in the facts of the present case the sanction was in fact correctly obtained from the Jt. Commissioner since he had recorded that in his view this was a fit case for reopening of the assessment. According to the Revenue, this would suffice and meet the requirements of Section 151 of the Act. It is submitted on behalf of the Revenue that this apart, mere obtaining the approval from a Higher Authority also, namely, the Principal Commissioner (Respondent No. 2), could not be treated as if the Jt. Commissioner has not found the present case fit for reopening. It is on this basis that the Revenue contends that the notice issued under Section 148 cannot be quashed and set aside on the basis that the requirements of Section 151 have not been complied with. 7. Having heard Mr. Pardiwalla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, as well as Mr. Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, we are of the opinion that the arguments canvassed by the Revenue, though at first blush may look....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act. 9. As far as the Revenue's contention that because the Jt. Commissioner has recorded that this is a fit case for reopening the assessment, the same would suffice with the mandatory requirements of Section 151, we find that the said issue is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Aquatic Remedies (P.) Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 545 (Bom.). In the facts of Aquatic Remedies (supra), the Court was considering whether the Tribunal was correct in quashing the order made under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 holding that the same is without jurisdiction, failing to appreciate the fact that the sanction of the CIT, was based on the satisfaction/report of the Additional CIT, and as such, the requirement of Section 151(2) was duly fulfilled. Answering this question, the Court in Aquatic Remedies (P.) Ltd. (supra) opined as under : "6. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant extracts from 'FORM FOR RECORDING REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, AND FOR OBTAINING APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL - V, MUMBAI' tendered across the Bar. The Form itself indicates that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is satisfied inasmuch as the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax has found it to be a fit case for issuing of notice. It is further submitted that even though, the approval was obtained from the Commissioner of Income Tax for issuance of the notice, it does not take away the fact that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was satisfied with reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is submitted that the notice dated 25th March, 2011, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 9. It is undisputed position before us that in terms of Section 151(2) of the Act, the sanctioning/permission to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act has to be issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. We find that the Assessing Officer had not sought the approval of the Designated Officer but of the Commissioner of Income Tax. This is clear from the Form used to obtain the sanction. In any case, the approval/satisfaction recorded in the form submitted for sanction of the Commissioner of Income Tax by the Assessing Officer reproduced herein above, it is clear that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax had not granted permission to initiate re-opening proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been fulfilled by the satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner that this is a fit case for the issuance of a notice under section 148. Section 151(2) mandates that the satisfaction has to be of the Joint Commissioner. That expression has a distinct meaning by virtue of the definition in section 2(28C). The Commissioner of Income-tax is not a Joint Commissioner within the meaning of section 2(28C). In the present case, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax forwarded the proposal submitted by the Assessing Officer to the Commissioner of Income-tax. The approval which has been granted is not by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax but by the Commissioner of Income-tax. There is no statutory provision here under which a power to be exercised by an officer can be exercised by a superior officer. When the statute mandates the satisfaction of a particular functionary for the exercise of a power, the satisfaction must be of that authority. Where a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner. In a similar situation the Delhi High Court in CIT v. SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. (ITA No. 836 of 2011 decided on September 14, 2011)-si....