SEEMA MEHTA,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

ITA 2405/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Seema Mehta against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The primary contention was the irregular assumption of jurisdiction by the tax authorities in initiating proceedings under sections 147 and 148, and passing the order under sections 143(3)/147 without complying with the mandatory conditions of sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal referenced a similar case, ACIT, Circle (1)(2) vs. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd., where it was held that the approval for reopening an assessment must be furnished to the assessee along with the reasons recorded for reopening.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473191 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT, Circle (1)(2) vs. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL KUMAR BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA; SHREY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" ITA No. 2405/Del/2024 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2405/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Seema Mehta, 18B Pocket A, Ist Floor, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi – 1100 05 PAN No.AGJPM3356N Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 28(1), Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Shrey Jain, Advocates Respondent by Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 12/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21/02/2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA: JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is directed by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income- ITA No. 2405/Del/2024 2 Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as \"CIT(Appeals)\" pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 and arises out of the assessment order dated 29.11.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act']. 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the assessee is primarily contesting and challenging the impugned orders of learned Tax Authorities Below on irregular assumption of jurisdiction and the relevant ground no.1 in that context is reproduced below: “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, assumption of jurisdiction in initiating the proceedings u/s 147 and passing the impugned order u/s 143(3)/147 and that too without complying with mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.” 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 the ITA No. 2405/Del/2024 3 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 ITA No. 2405/Del/2024 4 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 Id 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 ITA No. 2405/Del/2024 5 sanction under Section 151 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the impugned assessment order stands quashed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.02.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *Mohan Lal* Dated: 21.02.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) ` 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "