Case Law Details
Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Sansthan Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
Facts- Assessee deposited INR 92,41,500 with a banking company but didn’t filed any ROI for AY 2012-13. Therefore, the source of cash deposited remained unexplained and the case was reopened u/s 147. After making detailed inquiry, AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 assessing total income as INR 2,87,97,100.
Assessee argued that AO initiated action u/s 147 and issued notice u/s 148 on 25.03.2019. Assessee several times requested the AO to supply reasons for issuance of notice u/s 148 but AO didn’t provided the recorded reasons.
Conclusion- The Hon’ble Allahabad HC in Raj Kishore Prasad Vs ITO (1990) 195 ITR 438 (All) has held that “basis for issuance of a notice u/s 148 is the satisfaction recorded by CIT and in case order of CIT contains no finding or direction and there is only written a word “Yes” then their Lordships have held that the sanction was accorded in a mechanical manner without applying judicious mind to the fact of the case and thus the same cannot be considered to be a proper and valid sanction.
Since in the present case, the sanction was accorded by the ld. CIT in a purely mechanical manner without application of judicious mind, therefore, the sanction so accorded cannot be held to be a proper and valid sanction within the meaning of Section 151 of the Act and for this reason also, the impugned notice U/s 148 of the Act falls to the ground and proceedings for reopening of the assessee in absence of valid sanction of CIT cannot be initiated.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
