Marks Consolidated Business Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-6(2), New Delhi

ITA 7312/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7306 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MUSHTAQ AHMED MIR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Competent authority; Condonation of delay; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 195; 147; 68; 148; 144; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 7312/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS LTD., 1497, BHARDWAJ BHAWAN, WAZIR NAGAR, KOTLA , NEW DELHI (PAN: AAACM8113H) VS. ITO, WARD 6(2), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. MUSHTAQ AHMED MIR, CA DEPARTMENT BY : MS. RINKU SINGH, SR. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-6, DELHI ON 09.10.2017 IN RELATI ON TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 W HICH IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ORDER THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 2 2. THE AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 1 48 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS REASONS RECORDED AND SATISFACTION ACCORDED IS NOT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTIO N 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ORDER THEREFORE IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 3. THE AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 93,45,714/- MADE BY THE AO BY ERRONEOUSLY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, FORGO ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING . 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE IN THIS CASE INFORMA TION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION), NEW DELHI THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,53,11,000/- FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT, THERE IS A CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ON THE PRECEDING DAY OF THE DAY OF ENTRY GIVEN. HENCE, IT WAS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN CASH TO THE PARTIES AND HAS TAKEN THE CHEQ UES AFTER PAYING COMMISSION AT PREVAILING RATES I.E. FROM 1 TO 2 % OF AMOUNT INVOLVED. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A COMMISSION OF RS. 1,38,114/- @ 1.5% OF AMOUNT INVOLVED. HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A COMMISSIO N OF RS. 1,38,114/- @ 1.5% OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IN THE ENTRIES TAKEN FROM THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 93,45,714/- )RS. 92,07,600 + RS. 1,38,114) WAS CONSIDERED TO BE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE 3 WHICH WAS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AND AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT RS. 94,45,720/- VIDED HIS ORDER DATED 27.12.2010 PASSED U/S. 147/144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2 7.12.2010, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE HIS IMP UGNED ORDER DATED 9.10.2017 HAS AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO AND DISMI SSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE ST ATED THAT THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL OF 283 DAYS FOR W HICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONGW ITH ITS AFFIDAVIT. IN THE SAID APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELA Y WAS OCCURRED DUE TO THE SERIOUS INJURY THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSE E SUFFERED IN HIS LEG. THE DIRECTOR WAS OPERATED AND WAS ADVISED 14 WEEK S COMPLETED BED REST FOLLOWED BY REHABILITATION, WHICH LAST TILL DAYS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED IN THE APPLICATION THAT ASSESSEE IS A 71 YEARS OLD WHO GOT OP ERATED AND HIS REHABILITATION AND RECOVERY TOOK LONGER AND SOON AFTE R SOMEHOW RECOVERY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. ALONGWITH THIS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ATTACHED T HE MEDICAL /SICKNESS CERTIFICATE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, H E RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF N. BALAKRISHNAN VS. M. KRISHNAMURTHY, AIR 1998 SC 3222; SHAKUNTALA DEVI JAIN VS. KUNTAL KUMARI AIR 1969 SC 575; STATE OF WE ST BENGAL VS. THE 4 ADMINISTRATOR, HOWRAH MUNI CAPACITY, AIR 1972 SC 749 AND THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF PHOENIX MILLS LTD. D ECIDED IN ITA NO. 6240/M/2007 IN WHICH DELAY OF 1357 DAYS HAS BEEN CONDON ED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE REQUESTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 283 DAYS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR STATED THAT IN THIS CASE L D. CIT(A) PASSED HIS ORDER ON 9.10.2017 AND COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE O N 30.10.2017. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL ON 8.10.2018 AFTER A DELAY O F 283 DAYS. THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS NO T SATISFACTORY IN VIEW OF FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS:- I) ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED ON 30.10.2007 AND HE NCE THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING APPEAL TO THE ITAT, AS PER SECTION 253(3) WAS TILL 31.12.2017. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE APPEAL DURING THIS PERIOD AND THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FOR THIS DELAY. II) THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A MEDICAL CERTIFICATE FOR EXPLAINING THIS DELAY. THIS CERTIFICATE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OPERATED ON 18.1.2018 I.E. WELL AFTER THE TIME FOR FILING APPEAL HAD EXPIRED. III) FURTHER, AS PER THE SAME CERTIFICATE, THE ASSESSEE WAS DISCHARGED ON 21.1.2018 AND ADVISED BED REST OF 14 WEEKS, WHICH WOULD HAVE EXPIRED ON 15.5.2018. EVEN 5 THEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE APPEAL TILL 8.10.2018 . THEREFORE, EVEN THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSE DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IN THIS REGARD, HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOW ING CASE LAWS:- A) M/S KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD. VS. DCIT (2016 TIOL 3158 HC-MUM-IT) WHEREIN HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS NO EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL, SUCH DELAY IN FILING CANNOT BE CONDONED. B) M/S KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD. VS. DCIT (2017 TIOL 185-SC-IT). ON APPEAL, THE SUPREME COURT CONDONED THE DELAY AND DISMISSED THE PETITION BY UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. 2. SH. SUBODH PRAKASH VS. JCIT (2017-TIOL-2249- HC)P&H-IT) HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHEN THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SATISFY THE TEST OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE AS REQUIRED U/S. 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963, THE DEL AY CANNOT BE CONDONED. 6 ACCORDINGLY, SHE REQUESTED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL ON THIS GR OUND. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECO RDS. AFTER PERUSING THE MEDICAL RECORDS AS WELL AS THE APPLICATION F OR CONDONATION AND ITS AFFIDAVIT AND THE CASE LAWS CITED BY BOTH THE PAR TIES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AS WELL A S ON THE PRIMA FACIE OF THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THERE IS A PLAUSIBLE REASON WITH EVIDENCE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY OF 283 DAYS, HENCE, WE CONDONE TH E DELAY IN DISPUTE AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION AND PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE GROUND NO. 1 AND 2, ARGUED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE. T HE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. AR ARE APPLICABLE BEING ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. DR ARE DISTINGUI SHED ON FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 7. LD. A.R FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING HAS FILED THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 55, ESPECIALLY THE PAGE NO. 12 IN WHICH ADDL. CIT (RANGE-6), NEW DELHI HAS GRANTED THE APPROVAL IN A MECHANICAL MANNER, FOR ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, HENCE, REASONS RECORDED AND SATISFACTION ACCORDED IS NOT WITHIN T HE MEANING OF SECTION 151 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND THEREFORE, THE REASSESSMENT NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, HE REQUESTED TO QUASH T HE REASSESSMENT. TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D THE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 11.1.2017 OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF PR. 7 CIT-06 VS. M/S NC CABLES LTD. BY WHICH THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE SQUARELY COVERED. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT RECORD WERE SENT FOR APPROVAL TO THE ADDL. CIT ON 16.3.2010 AND APPROVAL WAS GIVEN ON 19.3.2010, WHICH WAS SHOWS T HAT THE RANGE HEAD HAD AMPLE TIME TO LOOK INTO THE RECORDS AND HE H AS APPLIED HIS MIND FOR SATISFACTION BEFORE GIVING APPROVAL. HENCE, THE REASON S RECORDED AND SATISFACTION ACCORDED IS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 15 1 OF THE ACT AND NEED NOT TO BE QUASHED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CONSI DERED THE CASE LAWS AND THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD ESPE CIALLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IMPUGNED ORDER, REASONS RECORDED AND THE AS WELL AS THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 55 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS; COPY OF REASONS AND SATISFACTION RECORDED; JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NC CABLES LTD. VS. ITO; IN THE CASE OF SARTHAK SECURITIES CO. PVT . LTD. VS. ITO; CIT VS. GANGESHWARI METALS (P) LTD.; CIT VS. DIVINE LEASING AN D FINANCE LTD. AND CIT VS. LOVELY EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED 216 CTR 195 (S C) AND THE ITAT DECISION DATED 25.2.2015 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. DIRECT S ALES PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 3545/DEL/2010 (AY 2002-03) AND CO NO. 138/DEL/2 010 (AY 2002-03) IN THE CASE OF DIRECT SALES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO. WE NOTE THA T IN THIS CASE, REASONS FOR THE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ARE THAT INFORMATION HAS 8 BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INVEST IGATION), NEW DELHI THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,53,11,0 00/- FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AS FOLLOWS:- BENIFIOARY'S NAME BENHICIARY BANK NAM1-: BHNI'JCIARY BANK BRANCH VALUE OF ENTRY 1AKEN INSTRUMENT NO. BY WHICH ENTRY TAKEN PATE ON WHICH ENTRY TAKEN NAME OE ACCOUNT HOLDER OF ENTRY GIVING ACCOUNT BANK FROM WHICH ENTRY GIVEN BRANCH OF ENTRY GIVING BANK A/C NO. ENTRY GIVING ACCOUNJ MARKS OONSOKHM B (I) BUSINESS LIB HDD K CI MARC 7(XXX)0 V 21-JAN-03 XDINANATH LUHARIWAI. SPT. MILL SBP DG 50103 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS L I D HDEC K G MARC 700000 21-JAN-03 / DINANATH LUHARIWAL SP1. MILL SBP DG 50103 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS L I D HDEC BANK K G MARG 7Q000G 21-JAN-03 ; SWL1U S TONE PV SBP DG 50106 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS LTD HDEC BANK K G MARG 700000| 21-JAN-03 SWE1U S I ONE PV SBP DG 50106 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS LTD HDEC K< J MARG 70CXX)0 27-JAN-03 YC'HIN 1PURNI CREDITS SBP DG 50058 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS LTD HDFC K G MARG 700000 2 7-JAN-03 CHIN I PURNI CREDITS SBP DG 50058 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS LTD HDFC K G MARG 70IXXX) 27-JAN-03 ' PARTICULAR MANAGE TIN I .EASE P. I. ID. SBP DG 50050 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS L I D HDI - C K G MARG 7(XXXX) 27-JAN-03 PARTICULAR MANAGE 1-INI.EASE P. LTD. SBP DG 50050 MARKS CONSOL1D A1 ED BUSINESS LED HDFC K G MARG <>00000 II - F EB - 03 I/ NISH ANT T IN VES T P. L I D. SBP DG 50080' MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS 1 ID HDFC K G MARG L XXXXX) 11 -FEB 03 NISH ANT TIN VES T P. L TD. SBP DG 50080 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS LTD N DELHI 701050 I3-JAN-03 SHRIT. ' GUP L ISHWAR MKI. P.I/TI). SBP DG 50099 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS L I D N DELHI 701050 R 3-JAN-03 SHREE GUP I ISHWAR MK T. P. L I D. SBP DG I 50099 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS L ID , PO-ISS 701050 13-JAN 03 NISH ANT TIN VIST P. LTD. SBP DG 50080 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSINESS LID PO-LSS 701050 I3-JAN-03 NISH ANT I IN VIST P. LID. SBP 1X1 50080 MARKS CONSOLII WEED BUSNIESS LTI) HDI - C BANK EAST PATEL NAGAR 2/10 40(XXX) ' 258430| 5-OCR-02 SAURABH PEI KOCHEM(P) LTD JAJLAXMI COOP BANK FATEHPURI 3381 MARKS CONSOLIDATED BUSNIESS LTD HDEC BANK EAST PATEL T?NAGAR 2/10 400000 258430 ) 5-OCT-02 SAURABH PL TROCHLM(P) TED JAJLAXMI COOP BANK - FATEHPURI 3381 MARES CONSOLIDATED BUSNIESS LTD HDFC BANK EAST PATEL NAGAR 2/10 3(XXXX) 5I647<> 5-OCR-02 ACOOT INDIA I PVT. LTD JAITAXM1 COOP BANK FATEHPURI 3365 MARES CONSOLIDATED BUSNIESS I. ID DD SBI NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-OCT-02 \ SHAKUN TLA , DEVI JAII.AXM1 COOP BANK I FATEHPURI) 5807 MARES CONSOLIDA.1 ID BUSNIESS L ID DDSBI NEW DELHI -KXI680 164384 3-OCT-O 2 VSHAKUNTI .A DT ; VI JAJLAXMI COOP BANK FATEHPURI 5807 MARES CONSOLIDA LED BUSNIESS LTD DDSBI NEW -DELHI 40068X) 164384 3-0 CI -02 SHAKUN TLA DLVJ JAJLAXMI COOP BANK FATEHPURI 5807 MARES CONSOLIDATED BUSNIESS L I D DDSBI NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-OCT-02 SHAKUN 11.A DEVI JA1LAXMI COOP BANK FATEHPURI 5807 9 MARES CONSOLIDATE, BUSNIESS L/ID DD SB] NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-OCT-02 SHAKUNI LA DEVI JAJLAXMI COOP BANK I FATEHPURI 5807 MARES CONSOLIDATE, BUSNIESS L/ID DD SB] NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-OCT-02 SHAKUNI LA DEVI JAJLAXMI COOP BANK I FATEHPURI 5807 MARES CONSOLIDATE, BUSNIESS L/ID DD SB] NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-OCT-02 SHAKUNI LA DEVI JAJLAXMI COOP BANK I- FATEHPURI 5807 MARES CONSOLIDATE, BUSNIESS L/ID DD SB] NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-OCT-02 SHAKUNI LA DEVI JAJLAXMI COOP BANK I FATEHPURI 5807 MARES CONSOLIDATE, BUSNIESS L/ID DD SB] NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-OCT-02 SHAKUNI LA DEVI JAJLAXMI COOP BANK FATEHPURI 5807 MARES CONSOLIDATE, BUSNIESS L/ID DD SB] NEW DELHI 400680 164384 3-OCT-02 SHAKUNI LA DEVI JAJLAXMI COOP BANK FATEHPURI 5807 THE ABOVESAID INSTRUMENTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF ACCO MMODATION ENTRY, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AFTER PAYING UNACCOUNTED CASH TO THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY GIVER, WHO IS A KNOWN ENTRY OPERATOR AS PER THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION IS NOT THE BONAFIDE ONE. THEREFORE, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN INCOME OF RS. 1,53,11,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 DUE TO THE FAILURE ON THE P ART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT SO FAR AS THIS AMOUNT IS CONCERNED. THEREFORE, THIS CASE I S FIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(1 ), NOT U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. I AM THEREFORE, SATISFIED THAT THE SAID INCOME, ON ACCOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY WORTH RS. 1,53,11,00 0/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY AFTER RECORDING THE ABOVE SAID REASONS AS LAID DOWN UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NOTICE U/S 148 IS BEIN G ISSUED. SD/- (H.C. BANTWAL) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), NEW DELHI APPROVED. SD/- 19/3 ADDL. CIT RANGE-6 22.3.2010 NOTICE U/S. 148 ISSUED BY SPEED POST NO. ED 966225783 11N DATED 22.3.2010. SD/- INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), NEW DELHI 10 9.1 AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID REASONS RECORDED, WE FIND THAT THE SATISFACTION RECORDED AND APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE ADDL . CIT, RANGE-6/COMPETENT AUTHORITY IS A MECHANICAL AND ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN MECHANICALLY BECAUSE ON PERUSING THE REASONS RECORDED, WHICH DEMONSTRATES THAT ADDL. CIT RANGE-6 HAS WRITTEN APPROVED WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE AUTHORITY HAS NOT RECORDED PROPE R SATISFACTION/APPROVAL, BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. THEREAF TER, THE AO HAS MECHANICALLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, ON THE BA SIS OF INFORMATION ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE DIT (INV.), NEW D ELHI. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE CASE LAW APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED VIEW THAT THE REOPENING IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT. YE AR IN DISPUTE IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. OUR AFORESAID VIEW I S FORTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (A) HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. M/S NC CABLES LTD. IN ITA NO. 335/2015 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 11. SECTION 151 OF THE ACT CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT THE CIT(A), WHO IS THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE T HE REASSESSMENT NOTICE, HAS TO APPLY HIS MIND AND FORM AN OPINION. THE MERE APPENDING OF THE EXPRESSION APPROV ED SAYS NOTHING. IT IS NOT AS IF THE CIT(A) HAS TO RECORD ELABORATE REASONS FOR AGREEING WITH THE NOTING PUT U P. AT THE SAME TIME, SATISFACTION HAS TO BE RECORDED OF THE GIV EN 11 CASE WHICH CAN BE REFLECTED IN THE BRIEFEST POSSIBLE MANNER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EXERCISE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN RITUALISTIC AND FORMAL RATHER THAN MEANINGFUL , WHICH IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE SAFEGUARD OF AN APPROVAL B Y A HIGHER RANKING OFFICER, FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT I S SATISFIED THAT THE FINDINGS BY THE ITAT CANNOT BE DISTURBED. (B). HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. GOYANKA LIME & CHEMICALS LTD. REPORTED I N (2015) 56 TAXMANN.COM 390 (MP) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND WE FIND THAT WHILE ACCORDING SANCTION, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, INCOME T AX HAS ONLY RECORDED SO YES, I AM SATISFIED. IN THE CASE O F ARJUN SINGH VS. ASSTT. DIT (2000) 246 ITR 363 (MP), THE SAME QUESTION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF TH IS COURT AND THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES ARE LAID DOWN:- THE COMMISSIONER ACTED, OF COURSE, MECHANICALLY IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE HIS STATUTORY OBLIGATION PROPERLY IN THE M ATTER OF RECORDING SANCTION AS HE MERELY WROTE ON THE FORMAT YES, I AM SATISFIED WHICH INDICATES AS IF HE WAS TO SIG N ONLY ON THE DOTTED LINE. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO, THE EXE RCISE IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PERFORMED IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS OF TIME WHICH ALSO GOES TO INDICATE THAT THE COMMISISONER DI D NOT APPLY HIS MIND AT ALL WHILE GRANTING SANCTION. TH E SATISFACTION HAS TO BE WITH OBJECTIVITY ON OBJECTIVE MAT ERIAL 12 8. IF THE CASE IN HAND IS ANALYSED ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLE, THE MECHANICAL WAY OF RECORDING SATISFACTION BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, WHICH ACCORDS SANCTION FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, IS CLEARLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND WE FIND THAT ON SUCH CONSIDERATION BOT H THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE INTERFERED INTO THE M ATTER. IN DOING SO, NO ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED WARRANTING RECONSIDERATION. ( C.) HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. GOYANKA LIME & CHEMICAL LTD. REPORTED IN (20 15) 64 TAXMANN.COM 313 (SC) IN THE HEAD NOTES HAS HELD THAT SECTION 151, READ WITH SECTION 148 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT SANCTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE (RECORDING OF SATISFACTION) HIGH COURT BY IMPUGNED ORD ER HELD THAT WHERE JOINT COMMISSIONER RECORDED SATISFACTION IN MECHANICAL MANNER AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND TO A CCORD SANCTION FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS INVALID WHETHER SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION F ILED AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER WAS TO BE DISMISSED HELD, YES (IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE). 9.2 IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, AS AFORESAID, WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED VIEW THAT ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 151 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, HENCE, THE REOPENING IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR IN DISPUTE IS BAD IN LAW AND T HEREFORE, THE SAME IS HEREBY QUASHED. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE R E-ASSESSMENT, THE 13 OTHER GROUNDS HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC AND ARE THEREFORE NO T ADJUDICATED UPON AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAN DS ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 11-01-2019. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11-01-2019 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.