|COURT:||Delhi High Court|
|CORAM:||Najmi Waziri J, Ravindra Bhat J|
|CATCH WORDS:||Reassessment, Reopening, sanction|
|COUNSEL:||Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Somil Agarwal|
|DATE:||January 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||January 23, 2017 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|S. 147/ 151: The mere appending of the word "approved" by the CIT while granting approval u/s 151 to the reopening u/s 147 is not enough. While the CIT 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 Tribunal quashed the notice issued under section 147 of the Act for reassessment on the ground that the word “approved” appended by the Commissioner of Income while granting approval under section 151 of the Act reflected non-application of mind by the Commissioner and rendered the reassessment bad. On appeal by the Department, the High Court had to consider the following question of law:
“Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) did not in fact record satisfaction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing notice under Section 147, in the circumstances of the case?”
HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal:
Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the CIT (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.
Never just bland ‘approval’ means Nothing is right think of the High court;
see president ‘approval ‘ on the TN draft Ordinance forwarded by union Home minister even after scrutiny of environment ministry and law means equally ‘Nothing’ as personal satisfaction of the governor need to be before forwarding to the president; else president’s approval ordinance is just big Nothing.
see if TN passes a new statute on jallikattu based modification on PETA is not sustainable, even if based on the governor’s tutored Ordinance, that kind of plea by PETA NGO would just cause negative effect on TN statute if passed by the TN Legislature, pls wait and see the results it may not be very far off.
No law is sacrosanct like No constitutional amendment is sacrosanct; Jallikattu agitators or protesters simply wasted their energies on Non issue mechanics – that way mediation and conciliation situations arose all over the world; as there cannot be any ‘strict law as such’ ; even earth’s axis might change any time depending on Universe dispensations; like earthquakes, storms, cyclones, floods tsunamy and the like situations; even ‘nuclear bombs ‘ might fail in any given time too if nature modifies its own position that is the idea of the 12th particle theory of particle physics; even then man goes on spending billions of $ on nuclear development not knowing what is its future.
way back in 1975 in 101itr 385 the Hon’ble AP High Court advised the department stating “it would be better if the Commissioner of Income-tax assigns reasons for according sanction to obviate the contention by assessees that he has not applied his mind but has acted mechanically”.
but there the Court did not quash the notice /reassessment unlike what Hon’ble DHC did here.
message is loud and clear that you cant commit mistakes twice.