AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, dated 26.08.2025 arising out of assessment order dated 27.03.2022 passed under section 147 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
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 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 action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned reassessment order u/s 147 when the assessment order was barred by limitation since it was uploaded on the portal and served to the appellant on 19.04.2022 without digital signature.
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. 1,67,88,756/- when agricultural land sold was not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in terms of notification no. (SO 9447) dated 06.01.1994.
4)That in any case and any view of the matter, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,67,88,756/- without considering the submissions and evidences, made during the appellate proceedings and thus without observing the principles of natural justice.
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. 40,33,610/- when crop compensation was capital receipt and part of the sale agricultural land which was not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in terms of notification no. (SO 9447) dated 06.01.1994.
6)That in any case and any view of the matter, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 40,33,610/-without considering the submissions and evidences, made during the appellate proceedings and thus without observing the principles of natural justice.
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 outset, we have noted that the Registry has identified the delay of 16 days in this case for filing of appeals. Justifying the delay, the appellant had submitted that due to bona fide and unavoidable reasons the appeal could not file in time. It was submitted that Shri Pitam Singh expired on 20.05.2023 and the LH Shri Gaurav Nagar, was not aware of the income tax proceedings which contributed to the delay. All these factors contributed to the above-mentioned delays. Thus, it was argued that the delay is not intentional. We are conscious that no litigant gains by delay its matter. The Ld. DR did not seriously object to the condonation of delay. Delay of 16 days in filing of these assessee’s appeal are condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Hon’ble Apex court decision in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
Heard both the parties. Case file Perused.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to its grounds of appeal no.2 whereby, it has challenged the very assumption of jurisdiction by the ld. AO. It was argued that the said assumption is incorrect on account of inappropriate approval u/s 151 of the Act. The ld. Counsel drew our attention to the approval u/s 151 dated 31.03.2021 extracted hereinbelow.
The ld. Counsel submitted that in the impugned approval both JCIT as well as PCIT have accorded their approval which have become fatal to the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. It was submitted that the case of assessee is fully covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Seema Mehta ITA No.2405/Del/2024 dated 21.02.2025.
The ld. DR placed reliance upon the orders of the lower authorities.
We have noted that the facts of the present case are identical to those in the case of Seema Mehta (supra) and no distinguishment of facts could be pointed out by the respondent Revenue. We have noted that in the case of Seema Mehta, the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench has observed as under:-
“3.Learned counsel has brought on record a copy of form for recording reasons and for obtaining approval at page nos. 31-32 of the paper books and the same shows that for initiating proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the Act and for obtaining approval under Section 151 of Act, the Assessing Officer, has sought the sanction and the same has been first granted by Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax followed by the endorsement of the sanction by the learned PCIT.
4.Now as with regard to the relevant assessment year 2012-13, the law as stood then required the sanction of only learned PCIT. Learned Departmental Representative has, although, supported the impugned orders but was unable to counter the decision relied by the learned counsel of the Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT, Circle (1)(2) vs. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,[2021]128 taxmann.com 23 (Mumbai Trib), wherein in similar facts and circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in para 4.9.2 has observed as follows:
"4.9.2.We further find that the sanction obtained in terms of section 151 of the Act was not provided to the assessee along with the reasons recorded despite assessee asking for the same in writing before the Id AO. This, in our considered opinion, is against the settled principles of natural justice as reopening of an assessment is an extraordinary power available to the id AO and it should not be done in a cavalier manner. That is why the legislature in its wisdom had put lot of restrictions by imposing conditions for seeking approval and sanction from a superior officer in terms of section 151 of the Act. Hence the said approval obtained from competent authority ought to have been furnished by the Id AO along with the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment to the assessee. Moreover, in the instant case, the approval of both Additional CIT as well as Ld PCIT had been obtained by the Id AO in terms of section 151 of the Act as is evident in the statutory proforma enclosed by the id DR before us. Since the reopening in the instant case had been done beyond 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval and sanction ought to have been granted only by Id PCIT alone. Hence this is a case where satisfaction of Id Additional CIT is also obtained in addition to the approval of ld. PCIT, the said approval becomes invalid in terms of section 151 of the Act. It is trite law that if the law requires an act to be done in a particular manner, more particularly acts conferring jurisdiction like the present one, then, such act has to be done in that manner alone and the same cannot be compromised in any manner whatsoever.On perusal of the standard proforma for seeking approval in terms of section 151 of the Act, the legislature in its wisdom had prescribed such proforma, clearly demarcating and defining the circumstances under which the approval had to be granted by id Additional CIT and circumstances under which the approval had to be granted by the id PCIT. The said defined circumstances cannot be rendered otiose by obtaining approval from both Additional CIT as well as Id PCIT by the Id AO, as was done in the present case before us.
5.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to sustain the ground no.1 as pressed and hold that the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act was vitiated for invalid sanction under Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the impugned assessment order stands quashed…”
As the facts of the present case are identical to those Seema Mehta (supra). Hence, in respectful compliance to the decision therein, we are of the considered view that the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment under Section 147 of the Act was vitiated for invalid sanction under Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the impugned assessment order stands quashed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.