AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MADHUMITA ROY, J. M.:
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arising out of the Assessment Order dated09.12.2019 passed by the ITO, Ward 1(5), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. AO') under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13.
The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1)That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned reassessment order u/s 147/144 and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2)That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice.
3)That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,36,000/- being cash deposit which was out of withdrawal cash from the bank account duly reflected in cash flow statement that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice.
4)That in any case and in any view of the matter, the confirmation of addition of Rs. 3,36,000/- on allegation of non-submission of bank account is bad in law when the bank statement was on record.
5)That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,91,876/- by not allowing exemption u/s 54F of the Act that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice.
6)That in any case and in any view of the matter, the confirmation of addition of Rs. 18,91,876/- is bad in law.
7)That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend OR delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.
At the very outset of the matter, the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted before us that the approval for reopening of assessment under Section 151 of the Act was granted both by the JCIT Range 1, Ghaziabad and also PCIT Ghaziabad on 28.03.2019. Such approval was obtained by the Ld. A.O. is appearing at Page 1 to 3 of the paper book filed before us. Since the reopening in the instant case has been made beyond 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval and sanction ought to have been granted only by the Ld. PCIT. Since, the satisfaction of the JCIThas also been obtained in addition to the approval ofthe Ld. PCIT, the approval becomes invalid in terms of the provision of Section 151 of the Act and therefore, assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act by the Ld. A.O. is invalid and liable to be quashed. On this particular issue, he has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT Circle 1(2) Vs. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Corporation, reported in (2021) 128 taxmann.com 23, Mumbai Tribunal, wherein on the similar facts and circumstances of the matter, the approval so obtained by the Ld. A.O. since not in terms of the statutory provision stood quashed.
The Ld. AR has further relied upon a Judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Seema Mehta Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2405/Del/2024 A.Y 2012-13 wherein on the identical facts and circumstances on the case relying upon the Mumbai ITAT Judgment in the case of ACIT Circle 1(2) Vs. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Corporation Limited (supra) quashed the approval obtained by the Ld. A.O. since the same was obtained for both by the Additional CIT and the Ld. PCIT. A copy of each of these two judgments were duly furnished by the Ld. AR before us.
On the contrary, though the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below has not been able to controvert such submission made by the Ld. AR neither could bring any authority of law which is contrary to the ratio laid down by the ITAT Mumbai followed by ITAT, Delhi.
In the case in hand before us as it appears from Page 3 of the approval that the A.O. has obtained the approval firstly from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Ghaziabad and secondly from the PCIT Ghaziabad both on 28.03.2019 whereas having regard to these particular aspect of the matter that when the approval as per the statutory provision requires to be done in a particular manner provided by the statute for conferring the jurisdiction like the present one it has to be done in the manner alone and the same cannot be compromised in any manner whatsoever, therefore, respectfully relying upon the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench and also the Mumbai Bench the approval so obtained since found to be invalid which could not vest jurisdiction upon the Ld. A.O. for initiation of proceeding under Section 147 of the Act, and, therefore held to be invalid, illegal arbitrary and, thus, the reassessment is hereby quashed.
In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.