TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Income otherwise chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Accordingly, with the sanction of competent authority, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 26.03.2018 was issued through speed post to the appellant. In response, the appellant had not filed her Income Tax Return for the AY. 2011-12. Subsequently, notices u/s. 142(1) dated 01.08.2018, 12.09.2018 and 03.10.2018 were issued through speed post to the appellant along with questionnaire, specifically to furnish the sources of income and the said cash deposit. In response, the appellant had not responded to any of the notices. In the interest of natural justice, a show cause notice was also issued through speed post on 22.10.2018. However, the appellant had not replied. On account of the failure of the appellant to respond to various notices issued from time to time, the assessing officer was left with no option but to complete the case under section 144 to the best of his judgment. 3.2 The AO has given a finding that the appellant remained non-responsive and failed to furnish sources of income or nature of business being carried out during the previous year relevant to AY 2011-12. Accordingly, in the absence of the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t proceedings, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) by exercising the power conferred under Section 251(1)(a) of the Act, rightly remanded the issue to the file of the A.O. for framing fresh assessment, which cannot be found fault with. The Ld. Departmental Representative further submitted that mentioning of the provision 147(a) of the Act in Column 6 of the 'Form for recording reasons for initiating proceedings under Section 147 for obtaining the Approval of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax' was at the most is a typographical error, which cannot be resulting in terming the entire assessment proceedings as erroneous. Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order impugned, remanded the matter to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessment considering the fact that the Assessee has not participated in the assessment proceedings. However, while remanding the matter to the A.O., the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the legal issues/legal ground raised by the Assessee regarding assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act. In our opinion, when a legal ground is raised before the Ld. CIT(A), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Learned Counsel for the Assessee has pointed-out that assessee has raised this issue before the Ld. CIT(A), but, he has rejected the submissions of the assessee holding that Section 147(b) as mentioned in the reason and Format is a typographical human error which is curable under section 292B of the I.T. Act, 1961. This issue is also considered in the Order of VRC Township Pvt. Ltd., (supra) following the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kalpana Shantilal Haria vs. ACIT [2017] 100 CCH 165 (Bom.). Following the same reasons for decision, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and quash the reopening of the assessment in both the assessment years under appeals. All additions stand deleted. Accordingly, appeals of the Assessee are allowed." 10.3 In the instant case before us, also the Learned DR has argued that the mistake of noting section under section 147(b) of the Act for reassessment proceeding is a clerical mistake, however, the Tribunal in the above decision has rejected the said contention and quashed reassessment proceeding on the ground of non-application of mind while granting approval for reopening of the assessment under sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Kalpana Shantilal Haria vs. ACIT WP(L) No.3063 of 2017 dated 22.12.2017 wherein it was held that approval of action with reference to Section 147(b) of the Act is marred by nonapplication of mind. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Bhaijee Commodities (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2023) 154 Taxmann.com 292 (Del) has observed that approval based on nonexistent provision of Section 147(b) of the Act is not sustainable in law. Besides, no minimal reasons were given regarding his satisfaction for such approval. The approval given is clearly mechanical, perfunctory and routine. Thus, neither the reasons recorded under Section 148 of the Act justify the allegation towards escapement of income nor the approval given by the Addl. CIT stands the test of judicial scrutiny. The transaction of land parcel is also found to be between Mr. Khayali Ram and Rajeev and not assessee. Thus, looking from any angle, the jurisdiction assumed under Section 147 of the Act is not sustainable in law. 11. For the reasons narrated above, it is evident that reasons recorded for exercising the jurisdiction is plagued with several defects of critical nature. Such defects are incurable under Section 292B of the....