Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 405
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA, JJ.
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 - Appellant
Versus
SURESH KUMAR GUPTA - Respondent
ITA 1 of 2020 & CM APPL. 40 OF 2020, ITA 1000, 1018, 1024 OF 2019 & CM APPL. 40 of 2020, 55079, 55466 OF 2019
Decided on : 15-07-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.
Point of Law: Taxation - Assessments/Re-assessments - Sanction for issue of notice - No sanction was required in present cases as initial assessments had been completed under Section 143(1) of Act and notices for Re-assessments under S. 148 had been issued within four years period
Headnote:
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 151, 143(1), 148 and 260A - Appeal of assessee with respect to sanction granted by learned CIT under section 151 of income tax act - Appellant states that in Assessment years, there was no requirement to obtain consent of Joint Commissioner as initial assessments had been done under Section 143(1) of Act, 1961 and notices for Re-assessments had been issued under Section 148 of Act within a period of four years. He also states that sanctions had been obtained from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax in all relevant Assessment years. He points out that Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is of the same rank as the sanctioning authority of Income Tax, as mentioned in Section 151 of Act.
Finding of the Court:
It is not a fit case where appeals should be entertained under Section 260A of the Act. Moreover, if the facts now urged before this Court are true and correct, then the respondents should have brought the said facts to the notice of the statutory Authorities below by filing appropriate applications.
Result: Appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT :
MANMOHAN, J.
1. The appeals have been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Registry is directed to list connected appeals being ITA Nos.1000/2019, 1018/2019 and 1024/2019 today itself along with the present appeal.
3. With consent of learned counsel for the appellant, the present appeals are taken up for hearing.
4. It is pertinent to mention that the present appeals have been filed challenging the common order dated 21st December, 2018 passed by ITAT in ITA Nos. 3879/Del/2015, ITA No.3877/Del/2015, ITA No.3880/Del/2015 and ITA No.3878/Del/2015. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“16. We 1st deal with the appeal of the assessee with respect to the sanction granted by the learned CIT under section 151 of the income tax act. According to the provisions of section 151 which provides as under:
“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 section 148 except by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied 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 unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the 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-section (1), no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.
Explanation-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the Joint Commissioner, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself."
17. The relevant extracts of the various assessment year about the assessment are as under:-
Sr. A.Y Returned Income Assessed Income Assessed under section Date of Issue of Notice Sanction obtained by Reference of sanction mentioned by AO Sanction should have been obtained by
1 2004-05 450313 450313 143 (1) 25/8/10 CIT Para No.2.4 of the order Joint CIT
2 2005-06 855600 855600 143 (1) 25/8/10 CIT Para No.2.4 of the order Joint CIT
3 2006-07 945320 945320 143 (1) 25/8/10 CIT Para No.2.4 of the order Joint CIT
4 2007-08 747140 747140 143 (1) 25/8/10 CIT Para No.2.4 of the order Joint CIT
18. From the about table, it is apparent that the learned assessing officer has obtained the sanction by the learned CIT whereas the sanction should have been obtained of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. Identical issue arose before the honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd 58 taxmann.com 336 wherein the honourable High Court held as under:-
“xxx xxx xxx
6. A plain textual analysis of the above provisions would indicate the following:-
(i) Where the original assessment is a result of scrutiny assessment [Section 143(3)] or made in the course of re-assessment proceedings (Section 147) - but within the initial period, Section 151(I) 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
