Case Law Details
CIT Vs Aquatic Remedies (P) Ltd.(Bombay High Court)
It is undisputed position before us that in terms of section 151(2) of the Act, the sanctioning/permission to issue notice under section 148 of the Act has to be issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. We find that the assessing officer had not sought the approval of the Designated Officer but of the Commissioner of Income Tax. This is clear from the Form used to obtain the sanction. In any case, the approval/satisfaction recorded in the form submitted for sanction of the Commissioner of Income Tax by the assessing officer reproduced herein above, it is clear that the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax had not granted permission to initiate reopening proceedings against the Respondent-Assessee.
The approval which has been granted is not by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax but by the Commissioner of Income Tax. There is no statutory provision here under which a power to be exercised by an officer an be exercised by a superior officer. When the statute mandates the satisfaction of a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner. In a similar situation, the Delhi High Court in CIT v. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd. (ITA No. 836 of 2011 decided on 14-9-2011) since reported in (2012) 345 ITR 223 (Delhi) held that powers which are conferred upon a particular authority have to be exercised by that authority and the satisfaction which the statute mandates of a distinct authority cannot be substituted by the satisfaction of another.
In the aforesaid facts, the view taken by the Tribunal could not be found fault with as it merely followed the decision of this Court in Ghanshyam Khabrani. Therefore, the question as framed did not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
