Jugal Kishore Paliwal Vs ITO/NFAC(Chattisgarh High Court)
Date-1st April,2022

Sub- Reassessment notice u/s 148 on account of bogus purchases of Rice, Defects alleged in Sanction u/s 151, issue of notice and reasons recorded- Writ dismissed

The Single bench of Chattisgarh High Court in this case was dealing with multiple Writ petitions it appears of the same family/group where the primary allegation was that there was bogus purchases of Rice based on statements recorded of different parties. In the Writ challenge interalia was made to the absence of application of mind by the Sanctioning authority as well as defect in the signature on the notice/approval. However, the Court brushed aside all these arguments by relying on the decision in the case of Phoolchand Bajranglal , Raymonds Woolen Mills etc.

Moreover, the Court also interpreted Section 282A of the Act dealing with authentication of documents by the department by observing that every notice or other document to be issued, served or given for the purpose of this Act by any Income Tax authority shall be deemed to be authenticated if name and office of designated income tax authority is printed/stamped or otherwise written thereon. In the ‘Note’ appended at the bottom of sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961, it is mentioned that “if digitally signed”, the date of signature may be taken as date of document.

Litigation in the area of Reassessment will continue as long as income-tax is levied.

Ramesh Patodia
07-04-2022