Case Law Details
Sunil Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
We find that there is no allegation in the reasons recorded that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment u/s 147 of the Act, the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act after a period of four years from end of assessment year in case where assessment has been framed u/s. 147/143(3) of the Act is illegal and invalid.
It is also noted that the reasons recorded are vague and non-speaking and reflect complete non-application of mind much less independent “application of mind”. The action of the AO has been taken mechanically on the basis of information of DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun and, not on independent application of mind and therefore, on this count also the proceedings are without jurisdiction.
It is further noted that the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of no material much less any tangible and, relevant material and as such reasons record do not constitute valid reason to believe for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. It is further noted that the approval granted by the competent authority is a mechanical approval and action has been taken mechanically because on perusing the reasons recorded, it demonstrates that Joint CIT has written “Yes, in view of reasons recorded by the AO, I am satisfied that this is fit case for issue of notice u/s. 148 and similarly, the Ld. CIT, Dehradun has mentioned Yes, I am satisfied” which establishes that both the authorities have not recorded proper satisfaction / approval, before issue of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act. Thereafter, the AO has mechanically issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case law applicable in the case of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the reopening in the case of the assessee for the asstt. Year in dispute is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
In view of the above proceedings initiated by invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are nonest in law and without jurisdiction, hence, the re-assessment is quashed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
