TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 630
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y unsustainable for being contrary to applicable (case) law and uncontroverted (additional) evidence filed by appellant in discharge of primary burden under Section 68 of the Act and establishing the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of M/s. K.S. Nutrition & Foods Pvt Ltd, M/s. Zoom Developers SEZ (Indore) Pvt. Ltd, and M/s. Dreamlife Care Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. K.S. Developers Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "the creditor parties"). 3. That the impugned appellate order is legally unsustainable for perversely confirming the impugned assessment order suffering from the following ex facie jurisdictional errors: (1) The impugned notice dated 31.03.2018 purportedly issued under Section 148 of the Act was by non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer, (ii) Mandatory sanction of Ld. Pr. CIT vide Section 151(1) of the Act was obtained only after issue of the impugned notice u/s. 148 of the Act; (iii) The mandatory sanction/approval of the Ld. Pr. CIT to the purported reasons to believe dated 29.03.2018 was recorded in an ex facie mechanical manner and without application mind. 4. That the impugned appellate order and impugned addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Saroj Sangwan v. ITO, 2024 SCC OnLine ITAT 443" 3. That the impugned (re)assessment order dated 11.12.2018 passed by the Respondent is void ab initio as the mandatory approval/sanction was granted on 30.09.2018 under Section 151 of the Act, i.e. subsequent to the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act thereby being ex facie contrary to mandate of section 151 of the Act." 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to the additional grounds of appeal, submits that the additional grounds raised are in respect of very jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in passing the assessment order and since the additional grounds raised are purely legal grounds and go to the very root of the matter, the same may be admitted for adjudication. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Ltd. vs. CIT (229 ITR 383). 5. Heard rival submissions. On perusal of the additional grounds we of the view that they are purely legal grounds, go to the root of the matter and the very jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in making assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act and, therefore, respectfully following the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orities below, the material placed before us and the case laws. 9. In so far as additional grounds No.3 is concerned we observed that notice u/s 148 which is placed at page 70 of the PB suggests that the same was issued on 31.03.2018. On perusal of page No.673 of the PB which is the letter seeking approval u/s 151 of the Act which suggests that Assessing Officer sought approval from Ld. PCIT u/s 151 of the Act on 29.03.2018 and whereas Ld. PCIT had granted approval on 30.09.2018 which is placed at pages 674-675 which is as under: 10. Perusal of the approval granted by the Ld. PCIT shows that it was granted on 30.09.2018 which is post issue of notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018. Similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of River Valley Meadows and Township (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) wherein it was held that the notice dated 25.06.2019 issued u/s 148 of the Act was illegal since, there was no prior approval as required u/s 151(2) of the Act has been obtained by the Assessing Officer as approval was obtained on 26.06.2019. Similarly the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Svitzer Hazira (P.) ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) held that the iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used the orders of the authorities below and the materials placed before us we are of the view that the re-assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is liable to be quashed even on the ground that sanction/approval dated 30.09.2018 issued u/s 151 of the Act by the PCIT, Delhi-3 is in mechanical manner and without application of mind, for the reason that the Ld. PCIT had simply granted approval stating that "Yes, Approved" and this amounts to non-application of mind and such an approval is not a valid approval as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Capital Broadways (P) Ltd Vs. ITO (surpa) and also in the case of PCIT vs. Pioneer Town Planners (P) Ltd (supra). For this reason also, we hold that the reassessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is invalid, void ab initio and liable to be quashed. Additional ground No.1 is allowed. 15. Since, we have quashed the reassessment by allowing additional ground No.1 and 3 of the assessee, the additional ground No.2 and all other grounds raised by the assessee on merits need not be adjudicated as they become only academic in nature at this stage and thus, the same are left open. 16. In the result, ....