The initiation of assessment proceedings u/s 147/148 was without jurisdiction since the approval u/s 151 by the PCIT, XXXXXX was not as per law and not supplied to the assessee which is contrary to the legal position.
Approval u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act
The approval obtained from Pr. CIT, XXXXXX was never supplied to the assessee neither on mail, nor on Income Tax portal and not in person which is mandatory requirement and hence the entire assessment is null and void. The notice u/s 133(6) and its approval obtained from the higher authorities was not supplied to the assesse. Notice u/s 148 and its approval from higher authorities i.e. PCIT, XXXXXX u/s 151 was not supplied and in turn not received by the assessee. The assesse obtained certified copy on 16.03.2023
The Worthy Pr. CIT, XXXXXX has given permission for re-opening of the case Dt.20/3/2018 in a mechanical manner without application of mind and not given to the assessee but obtained by assessee Dt. 16.03.2023 photocopy only.
The principal Commissioner of Income Tax, XXXXXX has granted approval for reopening of the case u/s 147 of the act without independent application of mind. He has written as “I am satisfied that it is a fit case” but there exists no enquiry. No ITR of the assesse and even no bank statement. She was having only copy of reasons recorded and AIR information. Without pursuing the bank records of the assesse the satisfaction made is bad in law. He has relied fully on the reasons recorded by AO, Ward No. 2(1), XXXXXX and has made no enquiries, not checked the records of the assessee, not checked the bank statement of the assessee in which cash of Rs. 2850000 has been deposited on different dates but simultaneously he has withdrawn cash from the same bank on different dates. Stereotype approval has been granted to the ITO to open the case. The approval has no legal sanctity and hence the opening is bad in law and spirits.
The approval from the Principal commissioner of Income tax, XXXXXX has been obtained in a mechanical manner without any concrete finding, without looking at the bank account of the assesse. without preparing separate notes. Mere writing “I am satisfied” is an abuse and misuse of powers enshrined in the Act. Regarding this issue assesse has relied the Judgement of ITAT, Delhi Bench, ITA No. 988/Del/2018 in the case of Sunil Aggarwal Vs. ITO, Ward No. 1(3) (3), Haridwar.
Pr. CIT vs. N. C. Cables Ltd (Delhi High Court)
HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal: Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the PCIT (A), who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT (A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner. In the present case, the exercise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking officer. For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the findings by the ITAT cannot be disturbed.
In the present case the Pr. Commissioner of Income tax, XXXXXX has granted his approval in a most casual and routine manner. He has written (I am satisfied) is no satisfaction granted as per law and as per the above judgements.
The copy of approval obtained from the competent authority was not supplied to the assesse but assesse obtained the copy of the same from the office of the AO Dt. 16.03.2023.
The Hon’ble PCIT has given his approval by mere writing, “Yes it is fit case”. “I’m satisfied” The approval has been granted in a mechanical manner without looking the entire material. Even without looking at the bank statement. The approval granted is bad in law and spirits.
The approval obtained from Pr. CIT, XXXXXX was never supplied to the assesse neither on mail, nor on income tax portal and not in person and not by speed post which is mandatory requirement hence the entire assessment is prayed to be quashed.
Author can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org