TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p the same first for adjudication. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was originally filed by the assessee on 21-12-2013 declaring total income of Rs. 2.15,000/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 14-12-2015 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,74,470/-. The learned AO observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has sold an immovable property for 75 lakhs, the circle value of the property stood at Rs. 80 lakhs. On perusal of the record, it was found that assessee had made bogus claims towards cost of construction amounting to Rs. 13,42,340/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee had provided original copy of agreement dated 15-08-2004 with Shri Raju, contractor. This agreement was made on 15-08-2004 for construction of residential house at Hata Bhannamal, Gandhi Market, Etah, whereas the sold property exists at Vijaynagar colony ( Thandi Sarak, Etah). Also the sold property was acquired in March 2005, whereas the agreement for construction of house was made in August 2004. Accordingly, the learned AO concluded tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come originally assessed NA b Whether it is fit case of under assessment, assessment at too low a rate, assessment which has been made the subject of excessive relief or allowing of excessive loss or depreciation. Yes 10. Whether the provisions of Sec. 150(1) are applicable. If the rely is in affirmative, the relevant facts may be brought out that the provisions of Sec. 150(2) would not stand if the way of initiating proceedings u/s 147. No 11. Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment- The assessee viz. Smt Savita Gupta has filed her ROI for AY 2013-14 on 21/12/2013 at Rs.2,15,000/- u/s 139 of the IT Act. The case of the assessee was selected for CASS scrutiny u/s 143(2) of the IT Act. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act on 14/12/2015 at Rs.2,74,470/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee has sold an immovable property for Rs. 75,00,000/-, the circle value of this property is Rs.80,00,000/-. On perusal of the records, it is found that the assessee has bogus claim towards cost of construction amounting of Rs. 13,42,340/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... T. Act, 1961 (A.K. Mishra) JCIT, Range-Etah 13. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is satisfied for issue of notice u/s 148 recorded by the ITO that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148. 20.03.2019 Yes, I am satisfied with the reasons recorded by AO as at 'A' that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 (A.S. Singh) Pr. CIT, Aligarh 5. From the above proforma, it could be seen that approval under Section 151 of the Act has been given both by the Learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Etah and also by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh. The Learned JCIT has accorded the approval on 19-03-2019 and the Learned PCIT has accorded the approval on 20-03-2019. Now, the short question that arises for our consideration is as to whether when approval has been obtained from both Learned JCIT as well as Learned PCIT in a superfluous manner, whether the same would become fatal to the entire reassessment proceedings. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the co- ordinate bench decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd reported in 128 taxm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the circumstances under which the approval had to be granted by ld Additional CIT and circumstances under which the approval had to be granted by the ld PCIT. The said defined circumstances cannot be rendered otiose by obtaining approval from both Additional CIT as well as ld PCIT by the ld AO, as was done in the present case before us. 4.9.2.1 Reliance in this regard was rightly placed by the ld AR on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghanshyam K Khabrani reported in 346 ITR 443 (Bom) wherein it was held that :- 6. The second ground upon which the reopening is sought to be challenged is that the mandatory requirement of election 151(2) has not been fulfilled. Section 151 requires a sanction to be taken for the issuance of a notice under section 148 in certain cases. In the present case, an assessment had not been made under section 143(3) or section 147 for A.Y. 2004-05. Hence, under sub-section 2 of section 151, no notice can be issued under section 148 by an Assessing officer who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year unless the Joint Commissioner is s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which the statute mandates of a distinct authority cannot be substituted by the satisfaction of another. We are in respectful agreement with the judgment of the Delhi High Court. 7. In view of the findings which we have recorded on submissions (i), (ii) and (iv), it is not necessary for the Court to consider submission (iii) which has been urged on behalf of the Assessee. Once the Court has come to the conclusion that there was no compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 147 and 151(2), the notice reopening the assessment cannot be sustained in law. 4.9.2.2 Reliance in this regard was rightly placed by the ld AR on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Aquatic Remedies (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that :- 6. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant extracts from 'FORM FOR RECORDING REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, AND FOR OBTAINING APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -V, MUMBAI' tendered across the Bar. The Form itself indicates that the Assessing Office had submitted the proposal to obtain approval of the Commissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case for issuing of notice. It is further submitted that even though, the approval was obtained from the Commissioner of Income-tax for issuance of the notice, it does not take away the fact that the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax was satisfied with reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is submitted that the notice dated 25th March, 2011, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 9. It is undisputed position before us that in terms of section 151(2) of the Act, the sanctioning/permission to issue notice under section 148 of the Act has to be issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. We find that the Assessing Officer had not sought the approval of the Designated Officer but of the Commissioner of Income Tax. This is clear from the Form used to obtain the sanction. In any case, the approval/satisfaction recorded in the form submitted for sanction of the Commissioner of Income-tax by the Assessing Officer reproduced herein above, it is clear that the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax had not granted permission to initiate re-opening proceedings against the Respondent-Assessee. The view of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax wa....