TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A] dated 27-9-2024 against the giving effect order to section 263 proceedings passed by the Learned AO under section 147 r.w.s. 263 of the Act dated 28-03-2022. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before us by 1416 days in ITA No. 209/Agr/2025 and delay of 141 days in ITA No. 208/Agr/2025. Though the assessee had sought condonation of delay by way of sufficient reasons, considering the inordinate delay in filing of these appeals, we deem it fit and appropriate to impose cost of Rs 25,000/- in toto on assessee to be deposited with Allahabad High Court Legal Aid Authority within one month from the date of receipt of this order of the Tribunal. Subject to payment of the cost of Rs 25,000 as stipulated above, the appeals are hereby admitted and taken up for adjudication. 3. The assessee had raised a ground before us challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act per se which is the original assessment sought to be revised and consequential order being passed thereon. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has filed his return of income on 22-03-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported in 56 taxmann.com 390 (MP HC). The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the revenue against this decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 64 taxmann.com 313. Further, we find that the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of PCIT Vs. NC Cables Ltd reported in 391 ITR 11 (Del) had also held the same, wherein, the approving authority had merely stated "approved" in the proforma while granting approval in terms of section 151 of the Act. This approval was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High court to be a mechanical approval. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the recent decision in the case of SBC Minerals P Ltd vs ACIT reported in 475 ITR 360 (Del) had also held that similar kind of approval granted in a mechanical manner would vitiate the basic assumption of jurisdiction of the ld AO resulting in quashing of reassessment proceedings. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Ltd vs DCIT reported in 464 ITR 385 (Bom). We find that the Learned AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court in the case of Vikas Gupta vs Union of India in WP No. 554 of 2022 dated 08-09-2022....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....282A of the Act, 1961 read with Rule 127A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and Sections 2(d), 2(p) and 2(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 inasmuch as satisfaction bears the name and office of a designated income tax authority, i.e. PCIT. He submits that the moment the PCIT has pushed in "Generate Tap in ITBA System" his satisfaction under Section 151 of the Act, 1961, would be deemed to be an authenticated document in terms of Section 282A and thus is a valid satisfaction under Section 151 of the Act, 1961. The digital signature affixed by the PCIT on his aforesaid satisfaction under Section 151 of the Act, 1961, subsequent to issuance of the notice by the Assessing Officer under Section 148, would not invalidate the notices under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. He referred to paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 02.05.2022 sworn by Nisha Gupta, Income Tax officer, Ward-5(2)(5), NOIDA, which read as under: "17. That a perusal of the aforesaid provisions demonstrates that if a notice or other document is issued served or given for the purpose of the Act by any income tax authority, the same shall be deemed to be authenticated, if the na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....signed approval" issued in electronic form to the Assessing Officer is a valid approval as it is an authenticated document within the meaning of Section 282A of the Act, 1961. Therefore, we proceed to examine correctness of the stand taken by the respondents in their oral submissions as also made in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of supplementary counter affidavit dated 02.05.2022. Whether unsigned alleged approval is an authenticated document under Section 282A of the Act, 1961:- 16. Sub-section (1) of Section 282A contains the following necessary conditions: (i) such notice or other document shall be signed by that Authority and (ii) issued in paper form or communicated in electronic form by that authority (iii) in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. 17. The procedure for communication in electronic form has been prescribed under Rule 127A of the Rules 1962. 18. The first and foremost condition under Section (1) of Section 282A is that notice or other document to be issued by any Income Tax Authority shall be signed by that authority. The word "and" has been used in sub-Section (1), in conjunctive sense mea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;s name; to attest by signing." This appears to be its modern meaning, and is also one of the meanings given to the word "sign", namely "to attest or confirm by adding one's signature; to affix one's name to (a document) etc." 22. ......... 23. .................... 24. ................. 25. ............. 26. In the case of Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha and others, (1971) 1 SCC 453 (para-5) : AIR 1971 SC 730 : (1971) 79 ITR 603, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the validity of recording satisfaction under Section 151 by the Commissioner for the purposes of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and held as under: "5. In his report the Income-tax Officer does not set out any reason for coming to the conclusion that this is a fit case to issue notice under Section 148. The material that he had before him for issuing notice under Section 148 is not mentioned in the report. In his report he vaguely refers to certain communications received by him from the C.I.T., Bihar and Orissa. He does not mention the facts contained in those communications. All that he says is that from those communication....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of either clause (a) or (b) of Section 147. Therefore he could not have issued a notice under Section 148. Further the report submitted by him under Section 151(2) does not mention any reason for coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case for the issue of a notice under Section 148. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner has mechanically accorded permission. He did not himself record that he was satisfied that this was a fit case for the issue of a notice under Section 148. To Question No. 8 in the report which reads "Whether the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for the issue of notice under section 148", he just noted the word "yes" and affixed his signatures thereunder. We are of the opinion that if only he had read the report carefully, he could never have come to the conclusion on the material before him that this is a fit case to issue notice under Section 148. The important safeguards provided in sections 147 and 151 were lightly treated by the Income-tax Officer as well as by the Commissioner. Both of them, appear to have taken the duty imposed on them under those provisions as of little importance. They have substituted the form for the substanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me when the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961was issued by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner there was no valid satisfaction recorded by the Prescribed Authority i.e. the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Subsequent to issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer, the satisfaction under section 151 was digitally signed by the Prescribed Authority. Therefore, the point of time when the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 148, he was having no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices under section 148 of the Act, 1961. Consequently the impugned notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 of the Act, 1961 were without jurisdiction. The questions no. (a) and (b) are answered accordingly. 30. Since we have come to the conclusion that there was no valid satisfaction under section 151, therefore, the question whether Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax for the purposes of recording of satisfaction under section 151 is a designated Income Tax Authority under section 282 A of....