Whether penning down the expression “Yes” could be considered to be valid approval for 148 notice?
Respected Members
?
"Empower yourself with knowledge! Discover today's income tax case law through this insightful YouTube video. Click on the link to gain a deeper understanding of the case."
?
YouTube video link for Hindi video:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGp19FtB-sc
?
YouTube video link for English video:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj2H9XZbdDs
?
YouTube shorts video link:?https://www.youtube.com/shorts/z_YOFUXWpeY
?
Short note of today's case law for quick reference:
?
[2024] 465 ITR 356 (Del)
[IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT]
?
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
v.
PIONEER TOWN PLANNERS PVT. LTD.
?
YASHWANT VARMA and PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JJ.
?
February 20, 2024.
?
领英推荐
1. Principal Commissioner accorded satisfaction by merely stating “Yes”.
?
2. Tribunal quashed the assessment on mechanical approval.
?
3. On further appeal it was held that
?
4. Section 151 stipulates that approving authority must be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the A.O., that it is a fit case for the issue of notice u/s 148 to reopen the assessment u/s 147.
?
5. The satisfaction of the prescribed authority is a sine qua non for a valid approval.
?
6. The satisfaction arrived at by the prescribed authority u/s 151 must be clearly discernible from the expression used at the time of affixing the signature while according approval for reassessment u/s 147.
?
7. Such approval cannot be granted in a mechanical manner as it acts as a link between the facts considered and conclusion reached.
?
8. Merely appending the phrase “Yes” does not appropriately align with the mandate of section 151 as it fails to set out any degree of satisfaction, much less an unassailable satisfaction, for the purpose.
?
9. Principal Commissioner has failed to satisfactorily recorded his concurrence.
?
10. Mere penning down the expression “yes” could not be considered as a valid approval.
?
11. Though the Assistant Commissioner had appended his signature by writing in his hand “Yes, I am satisfied”, the Principal Commissioner had merely written “Yes” without specifically noting his approval, while recording the satisfaction for issuance of notice u/s 148.
?
12. No interference is required for ITAT order.