TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1893
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Centre Delhi erred on dismissing the Appeal of the Appellant assessee in limine without property dealing with the merits of the case which were discussed in detail in the Statement of Facts filed along with the appeal. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Leamed National Faceless Appeal Centre. Delhi erred in confirming the validity of the impugned reassessment proceedings initiated vide Notice dated 28th March, 2017 issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act without appreciating that the reasons recorded under section 148 of the Act were vague scanty and ambiguous and does not show any live link with the alleged escapement of income and that the reasons to belief were borrowed satisfaction of the other officers of the Income Tax Department. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi erred in confirming the validity of the impugned reassessment proceedings although the purported sanction accorded by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata for the initiation of the impugned reassessment proceedings was clearly a case of mechanical sanction without application of mind. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce. Thereafter, immediately the assessee contacted the Tax Advocate to file the appeal. It was in this backdrop that there was delay of 337 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Before us, ld. AR prayed to condone the delay. Ld. Sr DR opposed the condonation petition. 4. After considering the condonation petition and hearing the parties, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown reasonable cause in filing the appeal by 337 days delay. We, accordingly, condone the delay of 337 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee Company had fled its return of total income for the assessment year declaring loss of Rs. 35,435/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, it was found that the assessee company had received funds worth Rs. 2,18,00,000/- from M/s. Cresent Dealers Pvt Ltd., during the financial year 2010-2011, which was not explained. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 20th march, 2017 was issued to assessee to furnish a fresh return of income since the AO had reason to believe that the income of the assessee escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ited in the books of account in the garb of loan and added back the same to the total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal but without any success. Hence, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. At the time of hearing, ld. AR objected to the initiation of reassessment proceedings stating that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment suffers from various infirmities within the meaning of section 147 to 151 of the Act. He also submitted that in the said notice there is no mention of authorization of a higher authority to initiate the reassessment proceedings, therefore, the entire initiation has been vitiated and become bad in law. For this proposition, ld. AR referred to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of DSJ Communications vs DCIT, 222 Taxman 129(Mum), wherein, it is held that the approval of CIT is mandatory. Ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd vs ACIT in Writ Petition (T) No.367 of 2027, wherein, similar view has been expressed. Further, ld. AR submitted that the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reasons recorded u/s 148 of the Act. In our opinion, the provisions of the Act requires that where any action to be taken with the approval/ action/ action of the higher authority, the same needs to be mentioned in the notice and relevant documents/ order. However, the reasons recorded u/s 148 of the Act does not mention of any such order being obtained prior to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The case of the assessee also find support from the decision of Bombay High Court in case of DSJ Communication Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -2(1) [2014] 41 taxmann.com 151 (Bombay)/[2014] 222 Taxman 129 (Bombay)[13-09-2012] and in case of Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1), Chhattisgarh WP(T) No. 346 of 2017 dated 03.01.2018, wherein similar ratio has been laid down. Consequently, we held that the reopening of assessment has been made in a mechanical manner without application of mind as the reasons recorded by the ld. AO does not mention about the mandatory sanction/ approval having been obtained u/s 151 of the Act. The case of the assessee also find support from the co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s GTL L....