Case Law Details
Sh. Ramesh Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Amritsar)
Admittedly, the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward 1(3), Bathinda u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 22.11.2017 only makes a reference of the sanction obtained from the Pr. CIT, Bathinda vide his office letter No. Pr. CIT/BTI/Tech /151/2016-17/3749, dated 29.03.2017. Although, at the first blush, the reference of the aforesaid sanction of the Pr. CIT, dated 29.03.2017 in the body of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 22.11.2017 by the ITO, Ward-1(3), Bathinda, as claimed by the ld. A.R, would appear to be in context of the reopening of the assessee’s case by the A.O framing the assessment, i.e, ITO, Ward-1(3), Bathinda, but after considering the facts as are discernible from the records, we are of the considered view that the same is in context of the Notice u/s 148, dated 29.03.2017 that was issued by the ITO, Ward-II(1), Bathinda. Backed by the aforesaid facts, we hold a conviction that there can be two set of situations possible in the case before us, viz. (i). that the A.O, i.e, ITO, Ward 1(3), Bathinda, i.e the A.O having jurisdiction over the case of the assessee had failed to obtain the requisite sanction u/s 151 of the Act from the Pr. CIT, Bathinda qua his ‘reasons to believe’, dated 14.03.2017, and had issued the Notice u/s 148, dated 24.03.2017 ; or (ii) that the A.O, i.e, ITO, Ward 1(3), Bathinda had proceeded with on the basis of the sanction u/s 151, dated 29.03.2017 that was obtained by the ITO, Ward-II(1), Bathinda, and dispensing with the statutory requirement of obtaining any separate sanction qua the ‘reasons to believe’, dated 14.03.2017, that were recorded by him, had issued Notice u/s 148, dated 24.03.2017 and framed the assessment vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 22.11.2017. In either of the situations the assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O, i.e, ITO, Ward-I(3), Bathinda, de hors obtaining of the requisite sanction u/s 151 of the Act, would be devoid and bereft of any force of law. A far fetched situation that had been canvassed by the ld. A.R before us, i.e, the ITO, Ward-I(3), Bathinda had pre-empted the grant of sanction by the Pr. CIT, Bathinda u/s 151 of the Act, and prior to obtaining of the same on 29.03.2017 issued the Notice u/s 148, dated 24.03.2017, though being beyond comprehension had been rejected by us, but then, if that be so, then too the assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O, i.e, issuance of Notice u/s 148, dated 24.03.2017 without obtaining the requisite sanction u/s 151 of the Act, i.e, prior to issuance of the said notice would be bad in the eyes of law. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view, that as the A.O in the present case before us had failed to obtain the approval of the prescribed authority as contemplated u/s 151 of the Act, i.e, qua the ‘reasons to believe’ recorded by him on 14.03.2017, that it is a fit case for issuance of Notice u/s 148 of the Act, therefore, he had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and de hors satisfaction of the aforesaid statutory requirement issued Notice u/s 148, dated 24.03.2017 and framed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 22.11.2017. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations hold the Notice u/s 148, dated 24.03.2017 issued by the A.O, i.e, ITO, Ward-1(3), Bathinda as invalid in the eyes of law and quash the assessment framed by him u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 22.11.2017.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AMRITSAR
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bathinda, dated 22.02.2019, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O u/ss. 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act’), dated 22.11.2017 for Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee has assailed the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal before us:
“1. That the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment is devoid of any application of own independent mind by A.O, as no reasons to believe arises from the reasons being recorded by two separate assessing officers, notice u/s 148 issued by two separate A.Os and assessment is bad-in-law.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
