Modi Vs Modi

[Ashish kumar]

Recently Delhi ITAT has passed an order in the case of Lalit modi, I felt very bad after reading this order of the ITAT. Both members have not at all appreciated that they are deciding the case of a person who insulted India, who ditched the poor and the middle class people of India, who is crusader. The members of the ITAT should not have decided case of such antinational element on technical grounds the Bench has quashed the proceedings on the ground that Yes I am satisfied is not an approval granted with due application of mind ignoring the verdict of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Sonia Gandhi matter. Further they held that since AO has not disposed the objections the 148 proceedings would bad in law, they must have appreciated that in such circumstances the matter may also restored to the file of AO, Hon'ble Apex Court, larger bench way back in Gududhar brothers 40 ITR 200 (SC) has held that an illegality occur during the period of limitation would be irregularity and clock will start runing from that point of proceedings. ITAT must have guts to say that since this matter pertain to one antinational person they are not deciding the legal grounds rather disposing the appeals on merits. But everyone knows that why they decided only because they want to settle their kids in london with the help of crusader. I am going to write strong complaint to the PMO in this regard. Further the Cordinate bench of ITAT in one of the case namely Kamla Devi Vs ITO reported in 21 TTJ 66(Cal) has observed like this   One more ground that was taken by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the assessment so made by the ITO was not in accordance with law inasmuch as he did not obtain the prior approval of the IAC. On this point, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that this was not an illegality but an irregularity in view of the decisions : (1) Guduthu Bros. v. ITO (1960) 40 ITR 200 (SC); (2) Estate of Late Ranglal Jajodia v. Commissioner (1971) 79 ITR 505 (SC) and (3) Subramonia Iyer v. Commissioner 1977 CTR (Ker) 12 : (1978) 113 ITR 685 (Ker). The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, considered it proper to restore the matter to file of the ITO for doing the same afresh after complying with the provisions of section 52(1)/52(2) of the Act.Coming to validity of the assessment in the absence of obtaining prior approval of the IAC, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that this was an irregularity and not illegality in view of the decisions mentioned above. We, therefore, uphold the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue also.