TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 1415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herein ld. CIT (A) has dismissed assessee's appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case: In this case, the AO had information from the investigation wing regarding bogus donation of Rs. 7,00,000/- to Manavadhikar National Party and had claimed wrong deduction u/s 80G of the Act. The AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05.04.2023. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 27.12.2024 making an addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of bogus donation which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee has filed an appeal before us on the followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o have escaped assessment. 5. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs 7,00,000/- the deduction of which was claimed u/s 80GGC being the amount of donation given to the political party. 6. That the assessee craves leave to alter, add, modify or delete all or any of the ground before or at the time of hearing of appeal." 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted referring to ground no. 2 of the appeal that reopening in this case has been done vide notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05.04.2023 (placed at page no. 17 of the paper book) after taking of the approval of the PCIT Agra-1 (placed at page no. 18 to 19 of the paper book). The Ld. AR referring to the provision of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs covered under.... u/s 149(1)(b) for more than 3 years but not more than 10 years." and since the quantum of escaped income in this case was Rs. 7,00,000/- which is less than Rs. 50,00,000/- and therefore the approval u/s 151 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT 1, Agra in this case was an invalid approval and therefore the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 05.04.2023 issued in this case is an invalid notice and consequently, the assessment order dated 27.12.2024 passed in this case in consequence of the said invalid notice should be quashed. The Ld. AR in support of the above submission relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kartik Sureshchandra Gandhi vs. Asst, CIT Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai and ors. in WP no. 1812 OF....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time limit for current proceedings covered under.... u/s 149(1)(b) for more than 3 years but not more than 10 years." 6. In the present case, the Quantum of Income which has escaped assessment is Rs 7,00,000/- (wrongly mentioned in the Approval Rs 70,000/-). Section 149(1)(b) is applicable where the income said to have escaped assessment is likely to amount Rs 50 lakhs or more. 7. Thus, the Approval obtained u/s 151 in the present case being on wrong facts is mechanical and invalid and hence the entire assessment deserves to be quashed. 8. In the earlier synopsis, the assessee relied upon the case of Kartik Sureshchandra Gandhi (Hon'ble Bombay High Court) (Page 34 to 42 of the paper-book) This case is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Having considered the approval under Section 151 of the Act, we are satisfied that there is no valid sanction. There is no evidence that PCIT has even granted any valid sanction. If respondents say there was a sanction by respondent no.2, then it is an obvious case of utter non application of mind because he would otherwise have not granted sanction if he had only read and applied his mind to what is stated in box 9, i.e., the time limit for current proceedings covered under is stated to be under Section 149(1)(b), or he would have sent it back to respondent no.1 refusing to grant approval. It also goes to say that even respondent no.1, who has sought approval, has not applied his mind. We are of the opinion that if only respondent no.2 had....