Sh. Abhay Singh Chautala, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 1150/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8271 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income; Period of limitation; Question of law; Competent authority; Time period of passing order
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 143(3); 92; 92B; 139(1); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1150/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 SHRI ABHAY SINGH CHAUTALA, VS THE ACIT, HOUSE NO. 80,SECTOR 9, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ANQPS6334J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.N.SINGLA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL,DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.03.2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), CENTRAL, GURGAON DAT ED 17.07.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT NOTICE UN DER SECTION 148 OF INCOME TAX ACT WAS ISSUED IN THIS CA SE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 27.03.2007 AFTER DULY RECO RDING REASONS THEREON. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 148, ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.04.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 36,946/-. APART FROM THE ABOVE INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DECLARED AGRICU LTURE INCOME AT RS. 17 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUE D 2 QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ULTIMATELY COMPUT ED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 7,92,169/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS OF RS. 10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT DECLARATION OF SALARY INCOME, ADDI TION OF RS. 18,555/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DECLARATION OF INCOM E FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 7,30,0 00/- UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' AS AGAIN ST CLAIM OF ASSESSEE OF AGRICULTURE INCOME TOTALING TO RS. 17 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE RE-ASSESSME NT ORDER UNDER SECTION 147/143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 26.12.2007. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS ADDITIONS BEFORE LD. CIT(APPE ALS), HOWEVER, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS CHALLENGE D THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND ADDITIONS OF RS. 10,000/-, RS. 18,555/- AND RS. 7,30,000/-. 5. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF AP PEAL THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE RELATES TO CHALLENGE TO THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF INCOME TAX ACT WHICH IS ALREADY CHALLENGED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. HE HAS, THEREFOR E, REQUESTED THAT SINCE IT IS A LEGAL ISSUE THEREFORE, SAME 3 MAY BE ADMITTED AND RELIED UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. 229 ITR 383. 6. THERE IS NO SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO THE ADMISSION O F THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL ON BEHALF OF THE DEPART MENT. 7. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CHALLENGED THE RE-OP ENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN APPEAL, THEREFORE, THE ADDITIO NAL GROUND BEING LEGAL IN NATURE IS ADMITTED FOR HEARIN G. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE HAS REFERRED TO PB-67 WHICH IS REASONS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESS MENT. PB-1 IS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 27.03.2007 IN WHICH IT IS RECORDED THAT NOTICE IS B EING ISSUED AFTER OBTAINING THE NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING O FFICER HAS RECORDED IN THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING OF ASSES SMENT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. HE HAS CONFIRMED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. HE HAS RE FERRED TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151(2) OF THE ACT AND SUBM ITTED THAT SINCE RE-OPENING UNDER SECTION 148 HAVE BEEN D ONE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEREFORE, SATISFACTION OF THE JOI NT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS NECESSARY TO BE RECOR DED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH AT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WHICH IN THIS CASE HAS NOT BEEN DONE. HE HAS SUBMITTED T HAT SINCE NO SATISFACTION OF JCIT ON THE REASONS RECORD ED HAVE BEEN DONE, THEREFORE, ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 148 OF THE ACT ITSELF IS VOID AND BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. HE HAS RELIED UPON FOLLOWING DECISI ONS : I) DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SPLS SUDDHARTHA LTD. ITA 836 OF 2011 DATED 14.09.2011. II) DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SOYUZ INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD. ITA 158/2015 DATED 27.02.2015. III) DECISION OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DHADDA EXPORTS VS ITO 377 ITR 347. IV) DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM K. KHABRANI VS ACIT 346 ITR 443. 8(I) THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REF ERRED TO PB-68 WHICH IS FORM FOR RECORDING THE REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND FOR OBTAINING APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL CIT AND SUBMIT TED THAT ADDL. CIT HAS GRANTED HIS SATISFACTION ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON 26.03.2008 WHEREAS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT HAVE AL READY BEEN ISSUED ON 27.03.2007. THEREFORE, IT IS VOID A ND NULLITY AND NO VALID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF TH E ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER 5 SUBMITTED THAT REASONS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY SHRI AMRIK SINGH, ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1 ) CHANDIGARH WHEREAS FOR OBTAINING APPROVAL OF ADDITI ONAL CIT, THE SAME HAVE BEEN FORWARDED BY DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL, ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH AFTER ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THEREFORE, THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ITSELF IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 8(II) ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDER O F AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. 291 ITR 500. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECO RDED REASONS FOR RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, COPY OF W HICH IS FILED AT PAGE 67 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND READS AS UNDER : ANNEXURE-I NAME & ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSES SH. AB HAY SINGH CHAUTALA S/O SH. OM PARKASH CHAUTALA, H.NO. L, SEC.3, CHANDIGARH. ASSESSMENT YEAR STATUS 2000-01 STATUS INDIVIDUAL REASONS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DDIT, (INV.)-I/ NEW CGO COMPLEX, FARIDABAD VIDE HIS OFFICE LETTER F.NO.DDIT(INV.I)/ FBD/OPC/ENQ./ 2006-07/4670 DATED 19.3.2007, THE FOLLOWING DEPOSITS/CREDITS HAV E BEEN MADE DURING THE PERIOD 1.4.1999 TO 31.3.2000 IN THE BANK ACCOU NTS MAINTAINED BY SH. ABHAY SINGH CHAUTALA AND HIS MINOR CHILDREN:- 6 NAME OF THE BANK CREDITS DEBITS CASH CHEQUE INTEREST CASH CHEQUE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, SIRSA - 5,25,000/- 1,432/- 2,45,000/- 3,05,000/- STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHAUTALA - - 236/- - 115/- MINOR'S STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHAUTALA(KARAN) 555/- STATE BANK OF INDIA, CHAUTALA(PARNAV) 163/- TOTAL- 5,25,000/- 2,386/- 2,45,000/- 3,05,115 /- AS PER RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE, NO RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THIS OFFICE BY THE ASSESSEE THE DEPOSITS IN ABOVE BANK ACCOUNTS AMOUNTING TO RS.5,27,386/- AND UNACCOUNTED FOR. I HAVE, THEREFORE, REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,27,386/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 RELEVAN T TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. HENCE, NECESSARY APPROVAL FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2000-01 MAY KINDLY BE ACCORDED. LIMITATION PERIOD FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE IN THIS CASE EXPIRES ON 31.3.07. SD/- ( AMREEK SINGH) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF I.TAX CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH 10. PB-1 IS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ISS UED ON 27.03.2007 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHRI AMRIK S INGH, ACIT, CIRCLE-I(1) CHANDIGARH AND IN THE SAME NOTICE , IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE NOTICE IS BEING ISSUED AFTER OBT AINING THE NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX, CHANDIGARH. PB-68 IS FORM FOR RECORDING THE REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT AND FOR OBTAINING APPROVAL OF ADDL.CIT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WHICH IS FORWARDED BY DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL, ACIT CC-2, CHANDIGARH ON WHICH ADDL . CIT CENTRAL, CHANDIGARH RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION T HAT IT 7 IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 26.03.2008. 10(I) SECTION 151 OF INCOME TAX ACT READS AS UNDER : SANCTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE (1) IN A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB- SECTIO N (3) OF SECTION 143 OR SECTION 147 HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSES SMENT YEAR, NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (OR DEPUTY COMMI SSIONER), UNLESS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISS UE OF SUCH NOTICE]: PROVIDED THAT, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNL ESS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED, ON THE R EASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFORESAID, THAT IT IS A FIT C ASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. (2) IN A CASE OTHER THAN A CASE FAILING UNDER SUB- SECTION (1), NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING O FFICER, WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF JOINT COMMISSIONER, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS THE JOI NT COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSIN G OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE.] EXPLANATION : FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HERE BY DECLARED THAT THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, THE COMMISSIONER OR THE CHI EF COMMISSIONER, AS THE CASE MAY BE, BEING SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT FITNESS OF A CASE FOR THE I SSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, NEED NOT ISSUE SUCH NOTICE HIMSELF.] 10(II) IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE 8 ACT. FURTHER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, ADMITTEDLY NEIT HER ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) NOR UNDER SECTION 1 47 WAS COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT ON DATED 27.03.2007. THE NOTICE UND ER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 27.03.2007 I.E . FOUR YEARS BEYOND THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. THERE FORE, SECTION 151(2) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 11. CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151(2) OF INCOME TAX ACT, THE SANCTIONING AUTHORITY AS PER TH E ABOVE PROVISIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 148 OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SANCTION FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 148 WAS GRANTED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX, CHANDIGARH AS IS NOTED IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 27.03.2007, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY ADDL. CIT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON THE REASONS RECORDE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT ON 26.03.2008 WHICH IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 27.03.2007. THEREFORE, ANY SATISFACTION RECORDED BY ADDL. CIT A FTER ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WOULD BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE AND IS WHOLLY VOID AND NULLITY. THE SANCTION BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY AS MENTIONED IN SEC TION 9 151(2) OF THE ACT ONLY CAN ASSIGN PROPER JURISDICTI ON TO THE A.O. AND IF SUCH SANCTION WAS NOT OBTAINED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, LACKED THE JURISDICTION TO COMPL ETE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED JURISDICTION TO A PARTICULAR AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT TO GRANT SANCTION, THEN, IF ALL OTHER CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED, THE SANCTION HAS TO BE GRANTED BY THAT VERY AUTHORITY. THIS FUNCTION CANN OT BE DELEGATED TO ANY OTHER AUTHORITY. IT IS THE LEGAL DUTY CAST UPON THAT AUTHORITY TO PERFORM THE SAID FUNCTION. IF THAT AUTHORITY FAILS TO PERFORM HIS LEGAL FUNCTIONS AND SAME IS PERFORMED BY OTHER AUTHORITY, THEN IT GOES TO THE V ERY ROOT OF THE PROPER ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY TH E AUTHORITY WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO TAKE THAT SANCTION . 12. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SPLS SIDDHARTHA LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER : 2. AS PER THE AFORESAID PROVISION, IT IS ONLY JOINT COMMISSIONER OR ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, WHICH CAN GRANT THE APPROV AL. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT THE APPRO VAL WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER. INSTEAD, IT WAS TAKEN FR OM THE CIT, DELHI- ILL, NEW DELHI, WHO WAS NOT COMPETENT TO APPROVE EV EN WHEN HE WAS A HIGHER AUTHORITY INASMUCH AS SECTION 151 OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS JOINT COMMISSIONER AS THE COMPETENT AUTHOR ITY. THIS CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THEREBY QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CONT ENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT IT WAS MERELY AN IRREGULARITY COMMITTED BY THE AO AND WAS RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 292B OF THE ACT, HAS NOT BEEN FOUND C ONVINCING BY THE TRIBUNAL. 10 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENT, LEARNED COUNS EL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER WAS ROUTED THROUGH THE AD DITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE TREATED T HAT THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD GRANTED THE REQUISIT E SANCTION. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CONTENTION, WE HAD CALLED THE RECORDS. F ROM THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT THE NOTINGS DATED 12.3.2009 WAS PREPARED BY TH E AO AFTER RECORDING HIS REASONS, INSOFAR AS SEEKING APPROVAL IS CONCERNED. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTE IS AS UNDER: 'SINCE 4 YEARS HAVE BEEN ELAPSED, THE ASSESSMENT RE CORD IS BEING SUBMITTED FOR KIND PERUSAL AND APPROVAL OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-ILL, NEW DELHI ACCORDING TO SECTION 151(1) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT. ACT. SD/- (D.D. YADAV) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 9(1), NEW DELHI. ADDL. CIT. RANGE - 9, NEW DELHI CIT MAY KINDLY ACCORD SANCTION. CIT-III. DELHI SD/-12.03.09' 4. THE AFORESAID NOTING IN THE FILE DOES NOT REFLEC T WHAT LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE ARGUED. IN THE FIRST INSTAN CE, IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT THE AO HAD SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER ONLY. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE JOINT COMMISS IONER/ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER HAD GRANTED THE APPROVAL. FURTHER, NO DOUBT, THE FILE WAS ROUTED THROUGH ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER. HOWEVER, HE ALSO, IN TURN FORWARDED THE SAME TO THE COMMISSIONER BY GIVING TH E FOLLOWING ENDORSEMENT: 'CIT MAY KINDLY ACCORD SANCTION.' 5. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ADDITIONAL CIT DID NOT APPL Y HIS MIND OR GAVE ANY SANCTION. INSTEAD, HE REQUESTED COMMISSI ONER TO .ACCORD THE APPROVAL. IT, THUS, CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS AN , IRREGULARITY CURABLE UNDER SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. 6. IT IS RELEVANT TO POINT OUT THAT SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB- SECTION 2 OF SECTION 151 OF THE ACT ARE TWO INDEPE NDENT PROVISIONS. THE 11 DEFINITION OF JOINT COMMISSIONER IS CONTAINED IN SE CTION 2(28C) AND THE DEFINITION OF COMMISSIONER GIVEN IN SECTION 2(16), WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 'JOINT COMMISSIONER MEANS A PERSON APPOINTED TO BE A JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OR AN ADDITIONAL COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 117. 'COMMISSIONER' MEANS A PERSON APPOINTED TO BE A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SUB-SECTION(L) OF SECTION 117.' 7. SECTION 116 OF THE ACT ALSO DEFINES THE INCOME T AX AUTHORITIES AS DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT AUTHORITIES. SUCH DIFFERE NT AND DISTINCT AUTHORITIES HAVE TO EXERCISE THEIR POWERS IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW AS PER THE POWERS GIVEN TO THEM IN SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES . IF POWERS CONFERRED ON A PARTICULAR AUTHORITY ARE ARROGATED BY OTHER AUTHO RITY WITHOUT MANDATE OF LAW, IT WILL CREATE CHAOS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF LAW AND HIERARCHY OF ADMINISTRATION WILL MEAN NOTHING. SATISFACTIO N OF ONE AUTHORITY CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE SATISFACTION OF THE OTHER AUT HORITY. IT IS TRITE THAT WHEN A STATUTE REQUIRES, A THING TO BE DONE IN A CE RTAIN MANNER, IT SHALL BE DONE IN THAT MANNER ALONE AND THE COURT WOULD NO T EXPECT ITS BEING DONE IN SOME OTHER MANNER. IT WAS SO HELD IN THE FOLLO WING DECISIONS: (I) CIT VS. NAVEEN KHANNA (DATED 18.11.2009 IN ITA NO.21/2009 (DHC). (II) STATE OF BIHAR VS. J.A.C. SAID ANNA & ORS. AIR (1980) SC 326. (III) STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SHANTILAL MANGALDAS, AIR (1969) SCN 634. 8. THUS, IF AUTHORITY IS GIVEN EXPRESSLY BY AFFIRMA TIVE WORDS UPON A DEFINED CONDITION, THE EXPRESSION OF THAT CONDITION EXCLUDES THE DOING OF THE ACT AUTHORISED UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THAN THOSE AS DEFINED. IT IS ALSO ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT IF A PARTICULAR A UTHORITY HAS BEEN DESIGNATED TO RECORD HIS/HER SATISFACTION ON ANY PA RTICULAR ISSUE, THEN IT IS THAT AUTHORITY ALONE WHO SHOULD APPLY HIS/HER INDEP ENDENT MIND TO RECORD HIS/HER SATISFACTION AND FURTHER MANDATORY CONDITIO N IS THAT THE SATISFACTION RECORDED SHOULD BE 'INDEPENDENT' AND NOT 'BORROWED' OR 'DICTATED' SATISFACTION. LAW IN THIS REGARD IS NOW SELL-SETTLE D. IN SHEO NARAIN JAISWAL & ORS. VS. IJO, 176 ITR 35 (PAT.), IT WAS HELD: 12 'WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT HIMSELF EXERC ISE HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147 BUT MERELY ACTS AT T HE BEHEST FOF ANY SUPERIOR AUTHORITY, IT MUST BE HELD THAT AS SUMPTION OF JURISDICTION WAS BAD FOR NON-SATISFACTION OF THE CO NDITION PRECEDENT.' 5. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ANIRUDH SINHJ I KARAN SINHJI JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT, (1995) 5 SCC 302 HAS HELD THAT IF A STATUTORY AUTHORITY HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDIC TION, HE HAS TO EXERCISE IT ACCORDING TO ITS OWN DISCRETION. IF DISCR ETION IS EXERCISED UNDER THE DIRECTION OR IN COMPLIANCE WITH SOME HIGHER AUTHORI TIES INSTRUCTION, THEN IT WILL BE A CASE OF FAILURE TO EXERCISE DISCRETION AL TOGETHER. 6. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRI BUNAL HAS RIGHTLY DECIDED THE LEGAL ASPECT, KEEPING IN VIEW WELL- ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF LAW LAID DOWN IN CATENA OF JUDGMENTS INCLUDING THAT OF THE SUPREME COURT. 7. NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. THIS APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 12(I) HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SOYUZ INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UND ER 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE CONTENTIONS, THE REVEN UE HAD ARGUED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE SECTION 292B OF THE ACT PRECLUDED THE ASS ESSEE'S OBJECTION AS TO THE JURISDICTIONAL INFIRMITY OF THE NOTICE. THIS WAS RE PELLED BY THE ITAT ITSELF. IT RELIED UPON A DIVISION BENCH RULING IN COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX V. S.P.L 'S SIDDHARTHA LTD. (2012) 345 ITR 223. 4. THE REVENUE CONTENDS THAT THE ITAT FELL INTO ERR OR AND RELIES UPON THE PROVISO TO SECTION 151(1) TO SAY THAT IN ALL CASES WHERE RE -ASSESSMENT IS PROPOSED, THE APPROVAL OF THE HIGHEST AUTHORITIES SUCH AS THE PRI NCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER, IS ESSE NTIAL AND THAT IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE SUCH AUTHORIZATION HAD, IN FACT, BEEN SEC URED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE. 5. SECTION 151 READS AS FOLLOWS:- '151. SANCTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE.- (1) IN A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR SECTION 147 HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SE CTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF ASSISTANT COMMISS IONER OR DEPUTY 13 COMMISSIONER, UNLESS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IS SATI SFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE : PROVIDED THAT, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNL ESS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED, ITA 158/2015 PAGE 3 ON T HE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFORESAID, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. (2) IN A CASE OTHER THAN A CASE FALLING UNDER SUB-S ECTION (1), NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, W HO IS BELOW THE RANK OF JOINT COMMISSIONER, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM T HE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER IS S ATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FI T CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. 6. A PLAIN TEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS WOULD INDICATE THE FOLLOWING:- (I) WHERE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IS A RESULT OF SC RUTINY ASSESSMENT [SECTION 143(3)] OR MADE IN THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS (SECTION 147) - BUT WITHIN THE INITIAL PERIOD, SECTION 151(1) APPLIES. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WOULD THEN BE THE JOINT COMMISSIONER; (II) IN THE SAME FACT SITUATION, IN CASE THE NOTICE IS SOUGHT TO BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 147 AND THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147(1) I.E. BEYOND THE EXTENDED FOUR-YEAR PERIOD, THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR PRIOR APPROVAL TO THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER, OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER; (III) IN CASE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED 'OTHER THAN' I.E. OTHERWISE THAN UNDER SECTION 143(3) OR DURING THE COURSE OF RE- AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, COMPETENT AUTHORITY WOULD BE THE JOINT COMMISSIONER . 7. THE ITAT EXAMINED THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2 92B BASED UPON THE DECISION IN S.P.L'S SIDDHARTHA LTD.(SUPRA), WHICH REJECTED T HE REVENUE'S CONTENTION ABOUT ITS APPLICATION HOLDING THAT WHERE A JURISDICTIONAL INFIRMITY ITA 158/2015 PAGE 4 STRIKES AT THE ROOT, INVALIDATING THE ISSUANCE OF N OTICE, SECTION 292B CANNOT RESCUE IT. 8. THE REVENUE'S ARGUMENT SEEMS PLAUSIBLE AND EVEN LOGICAL BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER OR A CHIEF COMMISSIONER IS UNARGUABLY RANKED HIGHER IN AUTHORITY THAN A JOINT COMMISSIONER. YET AT THE SAME TIME, TH IS COURT HAS TO GIVE EFFECT TO PLAIN WORDS OF THE STATUTE WHICH UNAMBIGUOUSLY STAT ES THAT THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY IN SUCH CASES IS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER ( AND NOT THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER). THE RE VENUE'S SUBMISSIONS THAT ALL SUCH CASES, ARE COVERED UNDER PROVISO TO SECTIO N 147(1), THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR PRIOR APPROVAL WOULD BE FOUR SUPERIOR OFFICERS, RENDERS SECTION 151(2) SUPERFLUOUS. IF ANYTHING THE COURT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT ITS JOB TO RENDER, IN THE PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION, AN ENTIRE PROVISION ACADEMIC OR INOPERATIVE. THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT ACCEPTING THE REVENUE' S POSITION WOULD RESULT IN THAT CONSEQUENCE. THE COURT ALSO INVOKES THE PRINCIPLE E NUNCIATED BY THE PRIVY 14 COUNCIL IN NAZIR AHMAD V. EMPEROR , AIR 1936 PC 253 : AIR 193 THAT IF THE STATUTE MANDATES THAT SOMETHING BE DONE IN A PARTIC ULAR MANNER, IT SHOULD BE IN THAT MANNER OR NOT AT ALL. IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED 'OTHER THAN' THE EVENTUALITIES CONTEMPLAT ED IN SECTION 151(1), I.E. IT WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1). THUS, CLEARLY S ECTION 151(2) APPLIED. 9. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, THE COURT HOLDS THAT THER E IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. TH E APPEAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 12(II) HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DHADDA EXPORTS VS ITO (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER : WHEN PARTICULAR AUTHORITY HAD BEEN DESIGNATED TO RE CORD HIS/HER SATISFACTION ON ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE, THEN IT WAS THAT AUTHORITY ALONE WHO SHOULD APPLY HIS/HER INDEPENDE NT MIND TO RECORD HIS/HER SATISFACTION AND SATISFACTION SO RECORDED SHOULD BE 'INDEPENDENT' AND NOT 'BORROWED' OR 'DI CTATED' SATISFACTION. 12(III) HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GHANSHYAM K. KHABRANI VS ACIT (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER : POWERS WHICH ARE CONFERRED UPON A PARTICULAR AUTHO RITY HAVE TO BE EXERCISED BY THAT AUTHORITY AND THE SATISFACTION WH ICH THE STATUTE MANDATES OF A DISTINCT AUTHORITY CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED BY TH E SATISFACTION OF ANOTHER. 13. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ABOVE DISCUS SION AND IN THE LIGHT OF CASE LAWS REFERRED TO ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151(2) OF THE ACT ARE AP PLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY AC IT, CIRCLE 1(1) CHANDIGARH ON 27.03.2007 AFTER EXPIRY O F FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEREFORE, THE SATISFACTION OF THE JOINT COMMISSION ER OF 15 INCOME TAX ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUING OF SUCH N OTICE IS REQUIRED, HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO SATISFAC TION ON SUCH REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE JCIT. IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 148, THE APPROVAL FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH IS MENTIONED AND IN ANOTHER SATISFACTION , THE ADDL. CIT ACCORDED HIS APPROVAL ON 26.03.2008 AFTER ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WHICH IS WHOLLY N ULL AND VOID. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, DID NO T HAVE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF T HE ACT WITHOUT OBTAINING THE APPROVAL AND SANCTION OF THE JT. CIT. THE ABOVE DECISIONS SQUARELY APPLY TO THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE DECISION RELIED UPO N BY LD. DR IN THE CASE OF RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE POINT IN ISSUE. 14. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY APPROVAL/SANCTION OF JCIT ON THE REASONS REC ORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE, ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GET VALID JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 148 TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. RESULTANTLY, ENTIRE RE-ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE VITIATED DUE TO THE ABOVE JURISDICT IONAL ERROR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I SET ASID E AND QUASH THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF T HE 16 ACT. ALL RESULTANT PROCEEDINGS AND ENTIRE ADDITION S MADE IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE DELETED. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 6 TH MARCH,2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH