Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.33 seconds)Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 271A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs I.M. Lal And Anr. on 20 January, 1972
15. It is evident that the approval order is bereft of any reasons. It does
not even refer to any material that may have weighed in the grant of
approval. The mere appending of the word "approved" by the PCCIT
5
MA No.100/Del/2022
while granting approval under Section 151 to the re-opening under
Section 148 is not enough. While the PCCIT is not required to record
elaborate reasons, he has to record satisfaction after application of mind.
The approval is a safeguard and has to be meaningful and not merely
ritualistic or formal. The reasons are the link between material placed on
record and the conclusion reached by the authority in respect of an issue,
since they help in discerning the manner in which the conclusion is
reached by the concerned authority. Our opinion in this regard is
fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. M.L.
Kapoor[AIR 1974 SC 87]. The grant of approval by PCCIT in the
printed format without any line of reason does not fulfil the requirement
of Section 151 of the Act."
Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Ess Distribution (Mauritius),, ... on 21 November, 2022
(Mauritius) S. N. C. Et Compagnie v. ACIT [2021 SCC OnLine
6
MA No.100/Del/2022
Del 3613], wherein, while granting the approval, the ACIT has
writtenď€"This is fit case for issue of notice under section 148 of the
Income- tax Act, 1961. Approved", had held that the said approval
would only amount to endorsement of language used in Section 151 of
the Act and would not reflect any independent application of mind.
Thus, the same was considered to be flawed in law. "
Kakadia Builders Pvt Ltd vs Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) on 5 March, 2019
23. Given the explanation provided by the petitioner in his reply to the
notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Act and in the objections filed
by him, this approach certainly does not sit well with us. The courts
have repeatedly disapproved of approvals/sanctions granted for the
commencement of reassessment proceedings, which are undoubtedly a
serious business, by the superior officers without applying their mind
to the material on record. 23.1 The following observations made by the
Division Bench of this court in SynfoniaTradelinks Pvt. Ltd. v Income
Tax Officer, Ward 22(4) (2021) 435 ITR 642, being pertinent, are set
forth hereafter:.._")
3.6 Hon'ble Bombay High court in case of the standard
cooperative bank Ltd vs ACIT (26 Aug 2024) while quashing
impugned reopening action u/s 148 for want of invalid mechanical
sanction held notably "machinery u/s 151 has miserably failed" regards
kapilgoeladv22. The requirement for sanction by a high-ranking official
under Section 151, is an inherent check and balance in the statutory
scheme of the Act. Such officers are expected to apply their mind to the
facts and the applicable law and then accord sanction. In the instant
case, the proposed reassessment was sanctioned by the Principal
7
MA No.100/Del/2022
Commissioner of Income-tax, with the following remarks:-"Yes, I am
satisfied with the reasons recorded by the A.O. for issuance of Notice u/s
148 of the I.T. Act, 1961." [Emphasis Supplied] 23. The power to
sanction reassessment under Section 151, is coupled with a duty to
exercise such power reasonably, and not arbitrarily. It is trite law that
absence of valid reasons constitutes arbitrariness. In the instant case,
the entire process of according sanction demonstrates non-application
of mind to the ingredients of Section 147, rendering the sanction to be
arbitrary, calling for intervention by a writ court. Evidently, the
proposal, the recommendation and the approval in the instant case was
mechanical, without either application of mind to the law and the facts
or even a modicum of how the ingredients of the law had been met. In
short, the machinery under Section 151 completely failed"