Prashanti Investment (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 20(1), New Delhi

ITA 391/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2768 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR ANJULA JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMIT GOE L
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Question of law; Accommodation entries; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI 003. PAN AAACP1393E C/O. RAJ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES, C.AS. L-7A(LGF), SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-2, NEW DELHI 110 049. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 20 (1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI RAJ KUMAR, C.A. AND SHRI SUMIT GOEL, C.A. FOR REVENUE : DR. ANJULA JAIN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 1 8 . 1 0.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 . 1 1 .2018 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-7, NEW DELHI, DATED 19. 12.2017, FOR THE A.Y. 2009-2010. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ON 27.09.2008 DEC LARING 2 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. LOSS OF RS.6,890/-. THE CASE WAS REOPENED UNDER SEC TION 147/148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ON 31.03.2016 WI TH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AF TER RECORDING THE REASONS IN WHICH THE A.O. HAS MENTION ED THAT A LETTER DATED 29.03.2016 WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INVES TIGATION WING INFORMING THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS A BENEF ICIARY OF BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES RECEIVED FROM THE COMPA NIES CONTROLLED BY SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR JINDAL GROUP OF CO MPANIES. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR JINDAI GROUP OF COMPANIES AS WEL L AS IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAJAN KUMAR JAIN GROUP OF CASES IN WHICH IT WAS POINTED-OUT THAT AS PER THE LIST OF BENEFICIARI ES, ASSESSEE - COMPANY HAS RECEIVED SHARE CAPITAL PREMIUM/LOAN. A CCORDING TO A.O. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 31.03.2016 W AS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY BY SPEED POST AND BY EMAIL GIVING 30 DAYS TO FILE THE RETURN IN THE PRES CRIBED FORM. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN. THERE FORE, FURTHER NOTICE DATED 03.08.2016 WAS ISSUED TO THE A SSESSEE 3 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. REQUESTING TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE FIL ED OBJECTIONS TO THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 148 OF T HE I.T. ACT WHICH WERE DISPOSED OFF BY THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE IN THE OBJECTIONS CONTENDED THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 31.03.2016 HAS NEVER BEEN SERVED/RECEIVED AND THERE IS NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY SUCH NOTICE BEING ISSUED. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 HA S BEEN ADDRESSED AT THE ADDRESS AS 'E-10, GREATER KAILASH ENCLAVE, PART-II, NEW DELHI' WHICH DID NOT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS. ASSESSEE-COMPANY H AS BEEN FILING THE RETURNS OF INCOME AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS I.E AT 144, GO LF LINKS, NEW DELHI. THE A.O. HOWEVER, NOTED THAT THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF GREATER KAILASH BELONG TO SHRI C .L. ARORA, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND TH AT NOTICE WAS ALSO SERVED THROUGH EMAIL ON 31.03.2016. THEREF ORE, THERE IS A VALID SERVICE UPON ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE ASSES SEE FURTHER SUBMITTED OBJECTIONS BEFORE A.O. INTIMATING THEREIN THAT NO COPY OF THE EMAIL SERVED HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE 4 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND THAT SHRI C.L. ARORA RESIGNED FROM THE DIRECTORSHIP W.E.F. 20.02.2012. HENCE, NOTICE DATED 31.03.2016 IS NOT AT CORRECT ADDRESS FOR THE PURPOS E OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SERVICE OF NOTIC E UPON ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE A.O. FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PE R PAN DATA BASE, THE ADDRESS OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS OF TH E DIRECTOR AT E-10, GREATER KAILASH ENCLAVE, PART-II, NEW DELH I. THEREFORE, THERE IS A VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON ASSESSEE - COMPANY UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE A.O. ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS RECEIVED SHARE CAPITAL/SH ARE PREMIUM OF RS.15 LAKHS FROM M/S. EUPHORIA CAPITAL P VT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT CORRECT NAME IS M/S. AT ALL TIMES YOURS SECURITIES (P) LTD. THE A.O . WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T . ACT, 1961. THE A.O. FURTHER ADDED RS.20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CO MMISSION PAID FOR GETTING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. 5 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. 3. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY CHALLENGED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ABOVE ADDITIO NS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SAME SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN REITE RATED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, CONFIRM ED ALL THE ADDITIONS AS WELL AS CONFIRMATION OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD. 5. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN THE PRESENT APPEAL CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT AND ADDITION OF RS.30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMI SSION. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REFERRED TO V ARIOUS DOCUMENTS TO SHOW THERE IS NO VALID SERVICE OF NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. THEREFORE, ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 148 IS ILLEGAL. PB-1 IS NOTICE DATED 03.08.2016 ISSUED BY A.O. TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY F OR FILING 6 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. OF THE RETURN WHICH IS ADDRESSED AT 144, GOLF LINK, NEW DELHI. PB-2 IS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 31.03.2016 I SSUED TO ASSESSEE-COMPANY AT E-10, GREATER KAILASH ENCLAVE, PART-II, NEW DELHI. PB-3 IS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPAN Y REGARDING SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON THE ASSESSEE-COMPA NY. PB-4 IS ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006-2007 IN WHICH A.O . GIVEN ADDRESS OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY AT 144, GOLK LINK, NEW DELHI UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 19.11.2008. PB-5 IS RETU RN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IN WHICH AS SESSEE - COMPANY HAS SHOWN CORRECT ADDRESS AT 144, GOLF LIN K, NEW DELHI. PB-6 IS OBJECTIONS DISPOSED OF BY A.O. DATED 29.08.2016 GIVING CORRECT ADDRESS OF ASSESSEE-COMPA NY AT 144, GOLF LINK, NEW DELHI. PB-8 IS EMAIL AT WHICH N OTICE THROUGH EMAIL HAVE BEEN SERVED. PB-14 IS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO INTIMATE THAT A.O. SENT EMAIL A T WRONG ADDRESS I.E., PRASHANTI [e-mail] . PB-14 IS THE LETTER EXPLAINING THAT CORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS OF ASS ESSEE AS PER RETURN FILED IS [e-mail] . PB-12 IS INTIMATION TO A.O. OF RESIGNATION OF SHRI C.L. AROR A, DIRECTOR 7 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. W.E.F. 20.02.2012. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED UPON ASSESSEE-COMPANY. HE HAS RELIED UP ON JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT-1 VS. ATLANTA CAPITAL PVT. LTD., IN ITA.NO.665 OF 201 5, DATED 21.09.2015 IN WHICH IN PARAS 7 TO 14 IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : 7. ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN T HAT NOTICE DATED 27TH MARCH 2008 UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ('AO') AT THE ADDRESS AT B-231, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AR EA, PHASE-I, NEW DELHI. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD SH IFTED FROM THAT ADDRESS WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST FEBRUARY 200 5 TO A NEW ADDRESS AT B-115, SARVODAYA ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. FOR AY 2005-06 AND THE SUBSEQUENT AYS, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED HIS ADDRESS AS B-115, SARVODAYA ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. EVEN THE AO HAD SENT LETTERS TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE SAME ADDRESS ON 8 TH AUGUST 2007. THE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT DATED 25 TH JANUARY 2008 FOR AY 8 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. 2006-07 WAS ALSO SENT BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE SAME CHANGED ADDRESS I.E. B-115, SARVODAYA ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS IN FACT ISSUED BY THE AO SHOWING THE AFOREMENTIONED CHANGED ADDRESS. 8. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF MR. N.P. SAHNI, LEARNE D SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, THAT THE N OTICE SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENT AS TO LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 149 (B) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, AS NOTED BY THE ITAT, THE NOTICE ITSELF WAS NOT ISSUED AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS . THE FACT THAT THE SAID NOTICE, SENT BY SPEED POST, WAS NOT R ETURNED UNSERVED, WOULD BE TO NO AVAIL SINCE THE ADDRESS GI VEN IN THE NOTICE WAS NOT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. MR. SAHNI THEN SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE GOT HIS CHANGED ADDRESS ENT ERED IN THE PAN DATA BASE FAILING WHICH THE AO WOULD ONL Y GO 9 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. BY THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE RECORD OF THE RELEVANT AY WHICH IN THE CASE IS AY 2001-02. 10. THE COURT IS UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THIS SUBMISSION. NO PROVISION IN THE ACT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO THE COURT WHICH OBLIGES THE ASSESSEE TO ENSURE THAT HIS CHANGED ADDRESS IS ENTERED IN THE PAN DATA BASE FAI LING WHICH HE IS PRECLUDED FROM INSISTING ON THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 BEING ISSUED TO HIM AT THE KNOWN ADDRESS AND BEING SERVED UPON HIM. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ON FACT S, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AO WAS AWARE OF THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND YET THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AT THE OLDER ADDRESS. 11. MR. SAHNI SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) NOTES THE FACT THAT A PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE WAS G IVEN TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A ND THAT BY ITSELF SHOULD CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. IN LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED BY T HE SUPREME COURT IN R.K. UPADHYAYA V. SHANBHAI P. PATEL 10 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. (1987) 3 SCC 96 WHICH HAS IN TURN BEEN FOLLOWED BY THIS COURT IN CHETAN GUPTA (SUPRA), THE REQUIREMENT OF B OTH THE ISSUANCE AND THE SERVICE OF SUCH UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 147 AND 148 OF THE ACT ARE MANDATORY 'JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS'. THE MERE FACT THAT AN ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED IN THE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DESPITE NOT HAVING BEEN ISSU ED OR SERVED WITH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF THE SAID JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT. 12. ON FACTS, THEREFORE, THE COURT FINDS NO LEGAL ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ITAT IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 13. CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT FINDS THAT NO SUBSTANT IAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COU RT. 14. THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. 11 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. 5.1. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON DECISION OF HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ESHAAN HOLDING (P ) LTD., (2012) 344 ITR 541 (DEL.) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT NOTICE SENT TO OLD ADDRESS AND SERVICE BY AFFIXTURE AT OLD ADDR ESS IS NOT PROPER. CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT IS NOT VALID. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED UPON DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHETAN GUPT A (2015) 126 DTR 401 (DEL.) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 148 SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON ASSESSEE IS A JURISDICTI ONAL REQUIREMENT AND MUST BE MANDATORILY COMPLIED WITH. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 HAS BEEN SERVED UPON ASSES SEE - COMPANY THROUGH POST OR THROUGH EMAIL, THEREFORE, INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 ARE ILLEGAL AND BA D IN LAW. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED AS PER PAN DATA BASE IN WHICH ADDRESS OF GREATER KA ILASH HAS BEEN MENTIONED. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TO G ET IT 12 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. UPDATED. THE LD. D.R. PRODUCED THE ASSESSMENT RECOR D WHICH SHOWS THAT ORIGINAL NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 RETURN ED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES ON 02.04.2016 WITH THE REMARKS T HAT NO SUCH FIRM. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 HAVE BEEN SER VED UPON THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THEREFORE, ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL HAS MENTIONED ITS ADDRESS AT 144, GOLF LINK, NEW DELHI. THE SAME ADDRESS IS M ENTIONED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER EXCEPT IN THE N OTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED THE CORRECT ADDRESS IN ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER APPEAL AS WELL AS IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS INC LUDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY EXPLAINED THAT NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 148 HAVE BEEN ISSUED AT INCORRECT ADDRESS AT E-10, GREATER KAILASH ENCLAVE, PART-II, NEW DELHI, WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO 13 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE A.O. HOWEVER, STATED THAT IT IS THE ADDRESS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY SHR I C.L. ARORA. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD A LREADY RESIGNED FROM THE DIRECTORSHIP IN THE YEAR 2012. EV EN THEREAFTER, THE A.O. WAS MAKING CORRESPONDENCE AT T HE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AT 144, GOLF LINK, NEW DELH I. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF PR. CIT- 1 VS. ATLANTA CAPITAL PVT. LTD., IN ITA.NO.665 OF 2 015, DATED 21.09.2015 (SUPRA), CLEARLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IT WOULD SHOW THAT A.O. WAS AWARE OF THE CORREC T ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND AS SUCH, A.O. CANNOT TA KE ADDRESS FROM PAN DATA BASE. THE A.O. DESPITE NOTING CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN EARLIER YEAR, HA S WRONGLY ISSUED NOTICE AT THE WRONG ADDRESS WHICH IS PROVED BY THE FACT THAT THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES RETURNED THE ORIGINAL N OTICE ON 02.04.2016 WITH THE REMARKS NO SUCH FIRM. THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE A.O. THAT WRONG E MAIL ADDRESS HAVE BEEN USED BY A.O. FOR THE PURPOSE OF S ENDING INTIMATION OF ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THI S FACT IS 14 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. PROVED BY ASSESSEE-COMPANY BECAUSE THERE IS A DIFFE RENCE IN EMAIL ADDRESS SHOWN BY THE A.O. AND GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE- COMPANY. THERE IS NO DENIAL OF SUCH EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE- COMPANY. THESE FACTS CLEARLY PROVE THAT NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 148 DATED 31.03.2016 HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED UPON ASSE SSEE- COMPANY. THEREFORE, ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 148 ARE VITIATED AND ARE ILLEGAL AND VOID ABINITIO. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ALLOWED. 8. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO PB-22 WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE PR. CIT FOR INITIATI ON OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE I.T. ACT IN WH ICH IN COLUMN NO.13, THE PR. CIT HAS MENTIONED YES . LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT APPROVAL UN DER SECTION 151 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND SUCH APPROVAL IS PURELY MECHANICAL AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. HE HAS RELIED UPON DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. N.C. CABLES LTD., (2017) 391 ITR 11 (DEL.) IN WHICH THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT SECTION 151 OF THE ACT 15 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. CLEARLY STIPULATED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHO WAS THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO AUTHOR IZE THE RE- ASSESSMENT NOTICE, HAD TO APPLY HIS MIND AND FORM A N OPINION. MERE APPENDING OF THE EXPRESSION APPROVED SAYS NOTHING. 8.1. HE HAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT EVEN APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 151 IS NOT VALID, THEREFORE, PROCEEDINGS UN DER SECTIONS 147/148 ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT FACT S HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ADDL. CIT BEFORE GRANTI NG APPROVAL IN THIS CASE. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE- COMPANY BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. N.C. CABLES LTD., (SUP RA). IN THE PRESENT CASE, PR. CIT WHILE GRANTING APPROVAL FOR I NITIATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, MERELY STATED YES, THE REFORE, SUCH APPROVAL IS NOT VALID IN THE EYE OF LAW. I, AC CORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND QUASH THE 16 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THIS GROUND AS WELL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 O F THE I.T. ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THERE IS NO NEED TO DECI DE REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERIT. ALL ADDITIONS STANDS DE LETED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED 5 TH NOVEMBER, 2018 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE APP ELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. // BY ORDER // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI. 17 ITA.NO.391/DEL./2018 M/S. PRASHANTI INVESTMENT (P) LTD., NEW DELHI. DATE OF DICTATION 29.10.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT ORDER IS PLACED BEFOR E THE DICTATION MEMBER 30.10.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVAL DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P S DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATION MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. 05.11.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT 06.11.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 06.11.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER.