2025 (2) TMI 1267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jaj DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad CIT(A), Noida's-3 order dated 02.06.2023 passed in case no. CIT(A)- III/Noida/10135/2012-13 involving proceedings under Section 143(3)/153A of the Act. 2. 2219/Del/2023 for AY: 2015-16 Sh. Harish Bajaj DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad CIT(A), Noida's-3 order dated 02.06.2023 passed in case no. CIT(A)- III/Noida/10116/2014-15 involving proceedings under Section 143(3)/153A of the Act. 3. 2220/Del/2023 for AY: 2016-17 Sh. Harish Bajaj DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad CIT(A), Noida's-3 order dated 02.06.2023 passed in case no. CIT(A)- III/Noida/10667/2015-16 involving proceedings under Section 143(3)/153A of the Act. 4. 2221/Del/2023 for AY: 2017-18 Sh. Harish Bajaj DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad CIT(A), Noida's-3 order dated 02.06.2023 passed in case no. CIT(A)- III/Noida/11849/2016-17 involving proceedings under Section 143(3)/153A of the Act. 5. 2222/Del/2023 for AY: 2018-19 Sh. Harish Bajaj DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad CIT(A), Noida's-3 order dated 02.06.2023 passed in case no. CIT(A)- III/Noida/11083/2017-18 involving proceedings under Section 143(3)/153A of the Act. 6. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on to the oral arguments submitted by the undersigned, the following legal issues/legal submissions, relevant to section 153D approval and two vital Judgments of the Hon. Supreme Court, on the legality and legal requirements of the Administrative Orders of government or executive authorities, may kindly be considered:- 1. The word/phrase "written approval" is not mentioned in the section 153D of the Income tax Act, 1961. The only phrase used is "the prior approval". Therefore, the contents of the written order of the JCIT/AddI. CIT are legally not required to be examined or considered, for meeting the legal or factual requirements of the approval under section 153D. 2. The order by the Addl. CIT/JCIT under section 153D is an Administrative Order, by the higher authority i.e. JCIT/AddI. CIT to the lower authority, i.e. AO. Such an order is not a quasi-judicial or judicial order. Therefore, the legal requirements and benchmarks regarding the principles of "the application of mind" and "the speaking order are not as strict or high, as they are in the case of quasi-judicial or judicial order. 3. In respect of the legal requirements and the benchmarks regardin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, 'consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention". 15. It could thus be seen that the scope of judicial review of an administrative action is very limited. Unless the Court comes to a conclusion, that the decision maker has not understood the law correctly that regulates his decision-making power or when it is found that the decision of the decision maker is vitiated by irrationality and that too on the principle of "Wednesbury Unreasonableness" or unless it is found that there has been a procedural impropriety in the decision-making process, it would not be permissible for the High Court to interfere in the decision making process. It is also equally well settled, that it is not permissible for the Court to examine the validity of the decision but this Court can examine only the correctness of the decision-making process. 16. This Court recently in the case of West Bengal Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 902 had again an occasion to consider the scope of inter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is self evident. The High Court would be empowered to exercise the powers when it finds that the decision impugned is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person would have ever arrived at. It has been reiterated that the test is not what the court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken. Not only injustice this but such a decision must have led to manifest injustice......................................................................... 25. In the present case, we find that the Commissioner had acted rightly as a custodian of the public property by pointing out the anomalies in the proposal of the Municipal Council to the State Government and the State Government has also responded in the right perspective by authorizing the Commissioner to take an appropriate decision. We are of the considered view that, both, the Commissioner as well as the State Government, have acted in the larger public interest. We are unable to appreciate as to how the High Court, in the present matter, could have come to a conclusion that it was empowered to exercise the power of judicial review to prevent arb....