TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 593
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts and law, hence, the said order be set side. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) has not gone through the note on information regarding Circular trading with Summaya Group for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20, where they themselves have held that the transactions with Summaya Group are Circular and not genuine transactions, hence, the addition of Rs. 1,27,57,013/- under Section 69C be deleted. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the provisions of Section 69C are not applicable to bogus transactions of sales and purchases. Hence, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad law deserves to be squashed. 5. The Ld. AO erred in reopening the assessment without obtaining valid sanction from the specified authority as mandated under Section 151 of the Act for issuance of notice under Sections 148 and 148A. Hence, the notice u/s 148 is bad in law as the conditions prescribed u/s 147 to 151A are not fulfilled. 6. Without prejudice to the above, Appellant submits that more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, hence, the sanction for issue of notice should have been by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment. Hence, the Ld. AO erred in reopening the assessment of the Appellant under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act and the same should be quashed. 14. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO has observed that the transactions of sales and purchases were not genuine without supporting documentary evidences, in such a case addition cannot survive. According to him, sales and purchases were not genuine without supporting documentary evidence. In such as case, addition cannot survive when sales and purchases are held as bogus. 15. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant submits that no evidence was brought on record before invoking Section 69C that the Appellant incurred unexplained expenditure. Hence, the Appellant prays that the entire addition to income under Section 69C be deleted. 16. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant submits that purchases and sales were recorded in the books of account which were not disputed, hence, the addition to income under Section 69C is not justified. Hence, the said addition be deleted. 17. Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal as the circumstanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso apparent from the assessment record. 4.2. The Ld.AR submitted that the statutory scheme applicable at the relevant point of time made a clear distinction between cases in which the procedure prescribed u/s.148A was required to be followed and cases falling within the exceptions contained in the proviso to section 148A. Referring to clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to section 148, as it then stood, read with clause (c) of the proviso to section 148A, it was submitted that where books of account or documents seized in a search conducted in the case of another person pertained or related to the assessee, and the statutory satisfaction was recorded with the requisite prior approval, the procedure u/s.148A was not required to be undertaken. According to the Ld. AR, in such circumstances, notice u/s.148 was required to be issued directly after obtaining the approval contemplated by the statutory provisions. 4.3. The Ld. AR further drew our attention to the approval placed in the assessment records. It was submitted that the approval sought and granted was specifically for passing the order u/s.148A(d) and no separate prior approval for issuance of notice u/s.148 was obtained. It wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner in which jurisdiction is required to be assumed under the statute cannot be regarded as a mere procedural formality. 5.4. More importantly, the material placed before us demonstrates that the approval obtained by the Ld.AO was for passing the order u/s.148A(d). The assessee has specifically pointed out from the approval form that the approval sought in the relevant column was for the order u/s.148A(d) and the approving authority also accorded its approval to the order proposed to be passed u/s.148A(d). No material has been brought before us by the Revenue to demonstrate that an independent prior approval, as required for issuance of notice u/s.148 in the circumstances applicable to the present case, was obtained. 5.5. The distinction assumes significance because the dispensation from obtaining a separate approval for notice u/s.148 operated where an order u/s.148A(d) had validly been passed with the prior approval of the specified authority. In the present case, however, the very applicability of the procedure u/s.148A is displaced by the Revenue's own case that the information emanated from the search material pertaining/relating to the assessee found in the course o....