Bharat Krishi Kendra vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1332 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                       NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                           Order Reserved on 28.02.2022
                                           Order delivered on 15/03/2022

                           WPT No. 27 of 2022
   • Bharat Krishi Kendra Through Partner Ramesh Kumar Parmar
     ( Age 65 Years), Shop No. 3, Nigam Complex, Ganj Para, Durg,
     Ps And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Pin 491001, Chhattisgarh,
     District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
                                                               ---- Petitioner
                                  Versus
   1. Union of India Through- Secretary, Central Board of Direct
      Taxes, North Block, New Delhi.
   2. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Raipur-1, Aaykar
      Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG)
   3. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Aaykar Bhawan,
      New Civic Centre, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
   4. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, New Civic
      Centre, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                         ---- Respondents

For Petitioner                    :       Mr. S. Rajeshwar Rao & Mr.
                                          Manoj Sinha, Advocates.
For Respondent No.1               :       None.
For Respondent No.2 to 4          :       Mrs. Naushina Afrin Ali, Mr. Ajay
                                          Kumrani & Mr. Topilal Bareth,
                                          Advocates on behalf of Mr. Amit
                                          Chaudhary, Advocate.

                 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

                                CAV Order

1. Feeling aggrieved by issuance of notice under Section 148 of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961'), petitioner

has filed this petition seeking for following relief:-

"(i) to call for the relevant records of the respondents for its kind perusal.

(ii) to quash the impugned notice issued under section 148 and all proceedings following said notice being based on unsigned and undated

reasons, unsigned proposals.

(iii) to declare that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 through impugned notice under section 148 are illegal and without jurisdiction being based on borrowed jurisdiction.

(iv) to declare that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 through impugned notice under section 148 are illegal and without jurisdiction for requisite sanction under section 151 of the Act was granted by an authority other than the authority designated in sub-section (2) of section 151 of the Act.

(v) to stay all proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice (Annexure P/1) and direct respondent No.4 not to pass final orders till disposal of present petition.

(vi) to pass such other order and/or further order and/or orders as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Mr. S. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for petitioner would

submit that respondents have started proceedings of re-

assessment of income tax returns submitted by petitioner for

the assessment year 2017-18 without following the procedure

established in this regard under the Act of 1961. Section 147 of

the Act of 1961, as prevailing during relevant period, requires

the Assessing Officer to record 'reasons to believe' for issuing

notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. Perusal of notice

Annexure P-1 issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961

would reveal that there is no mention that authority had reason

to believe for starting re-assessment process, hence notice

issued to petitioner does not satisfy requirement of Section 147

of the Act of 1961, which is a pre-condition. In the impugned

notice it is only mentioned that the assessee escaped

assessment of income in returns submitted by him for the

assessment year 2017-18, whereas the assessee in income-tax

returns disclosed entire amount deposited in bank accounts

that too within specified period i.e. from 9.11.2016 to

13.12.2016. Petitioner is having total four bank accounts in

which he is depositing cash and this fact has also been

disclosed to respondent Department. In income tax return,

petitioner has disclosed Bank Account No.910030017071357

maintained at Axis Bank Ltd. showing cash deposit of

Rs.63,27,990/- within prescribed period, which is separately

mentioned because this is the bank in which petitioner wanted

refund of tax, if any, to be deposited by respondent Department,

therefore, this account has been separately shown under

Column-13 of the income-tax return. In Column-13B other bank

accounts which the petitioner is operating and are within

records of respondent Department, are shown wherein cash

deposit within prescribed period, deposit of above Rs.2 Lakh

has been specifically mentioned. Hence, petitioner has declared

entire cash deposits in his return and it cannot be said that the

same has been escaped assessment. He contended that

Assessing Officer has only taken cash deposits of one bank

account and held that there was total cash deposit of

Rs.85,45,710/-. Difference between two has been treated

escaped assessment, which cannot be said to be correct in

view of income tax returns submitted by petitioner.

He further submits that as per provisions of Section 151

of the Act of 1961, as prevailing in the year 2017-18, approval

has to be obtained from the officer competent, as mentioned

therein. Referring to Section 151 of the Act of 1961 he submits

that if notice for re-assessment beyond four years of submission

of income tax return is to be issued, then approval of the

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is required. If it is within

four years then approving authority would be the Joint

Commissioner of Income Tax. In case at hand, the Principal

Commissioner of Income Tax has given approval under Section

151 of the Act of 1961, which is contrary to the provisions of

Section 151 of the Act of 1961. Hence, it cannot be said that

approval has been obtained from the competent authority. He

contended that when Statue authorizes a specific officer to

accord approval for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act

of 1961, then it is for that officer only i.e. Joint Commissioner of

Income Tax, to accord approval and not for any other officer

even superior in rank. In support of his contention, he places

reliance upon judgements of Bombay High Court in case of

Ghanshyam K Khabrani vs. ACIT reported in 2012 (3) TMI

266 and The Commissioner of Income Tax Central-4 vs.

Aquatic Remedies Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018 (8) TMI 135.

Another ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner is

that approval, as stated to have been granted to the Assessing

Officer under Section 151 of the Act of 1961, does not contain

signature of designated authority. He submits that even if it is

computer generated approval in the Form then also it should

bear 'digital signature' as appearing in the notice (Annexure P-

1) under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. In absence of

signature, approval under Section151 of the Act of 1961 cannot

be said to be valid approval granted by the designated authority.

In facts of present case, there is no valid approval of designated

authority, hence petition deserves to be allowed.

He contended that looking to multiplicity of litigations

under the Act of 1961 in issuance of notice under Section 148,

the High Court of Delhi had issued certain guidelines to the

respondent Department in case of Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v.

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2017 (9) TMI

1589, based upon which the Department had issued Standard

Procedure on 10.1.2018 (Annexure P-9). In 4 th Paragraph of

the Standard Procedure, it is specifically mentioned that before

issuance of notice under Section148, the Assessing Officer has

to issue summons under Section 131 and before recording

satisfaction, enquiry is to be made by Assessing Officer by

issuing summons under Section 133 of the Act of 1961. In case

at hand, Assessing Officer has not complied with the procedure

prescribed under Annexure P-9 dated 10.1.2018 because

Assessing Officer has not issued any summon under Section

131 of the Act of 1961. Standard Procedure for recording

satisfaction under Section 147 of the Act of 1961 is mandatory,

hence in absence of compliance of any of procedures as

mentioned in Annexure P-9, the entire proceedings stand

vitiated and no action can be taken against petitioner in

pursuance of proceeding, as initiated against the petitioner.

3. Mrs. Naushina Afrin Ali, learned counsel for respondents

vehemently opposes submissions of learned counsel for

petitioner and submits that the Department has followed the

procedure prescribed under the Act of 1961 as also the

Standard Procedure formulated by the Department vide letter

dated 10.1.2018. The Assessing Officer received information

from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Raipur

(for short 'DDIT') who had issued notice/summons under

Section 133 of the Act of 1961. Mere mentioning of deposits or

transactions in income tax return, which are accepted at the

time of submission of income tax return, will not debar the

authorities to reopen case for re-assessment. In case at hand,

though petitioner has disclosed deposits in other bank accounts

but did not explain source of that amount in proper manner in

return and this was the basis for initiating proceeding against

petitioner. The DDIT taking into consideration returns and other

documents submitted, called upon petitioner to furnish details

and explanation by issuing summons, which was replied by

petitioner. Reply submitted was not found to be satisfactory,

therefore, case was forwarded to the Assessing Officer, who

based on information received from DDIT and considering the

return as also the bank statement, issued notice under Section

148 of the Act of 1961. Petitioner finding that there is no

specific mention of reasons to believe for initiating proceeding

of re-assessment, submitted request letter to Assessing Officer,

which was replied by Assessing Officer, along with copy of

reasons recorded for opining to issue notice under Section 148

of the Act of 1961, which is also placed on record by petitioner

from Page No.32 onwards of writ petition. A glance of Page

No.32 of writ petition would show that after the chart showing

different deposits in different banks, the Assessing Officer has

mentioned that petitioner was asked to give documentary

evidence and produce details in support of cash deposits made

during demonetization period. Reply submitted by the petitioner

was found unsatisfactory, which is also specifically mentioned. if

income tax authority accepts income tax return/document

without raising any question then it does not mean that at

subsequent point of time, return/documents placed along with

return cannot be revisited and assessee cannot be noticed. In

support of aforementioned contention she places her reliance

on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/S. Phool

Chand Bajrang Lal vs Income-Tax Officer reported in (1993)

4 SCC 77.

With respect to submission of learned counsel for

petitioner that approval as provided under Section 151 of the

Act of 1961 has not been accorded to the Assessing Officer,

she submits that Assessing Officer has initially sought approval

from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and it is Joint

Commissioner who forwarded case to the Principal

Commissioner of Income Tax after application of mind. In

Annexure P-5 this fact is very much appearing. Referring to

Annexure P-5, she submits that in 'recommendation details'

there is mention of name of Joint Commissioner. As against

'recommendation remarks' there is mention that the Joint

Commissioner is satisfied with reasons recorded by AO for

issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. As

against 'remarks of approving authority' i.e. Principal

Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), who had also recorded

satisfaction for issuance of notice under Section 148, it is

mentioned that it is fit case for issuance of notice. Hence, in

view of recommendation remarks and opinion of the Joint

Commissioner recording satisfaction with the reasons recorded

by the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that approval, as

provided under Section 151 of the Act of 1961, was not

provided.

She submits that submission of learned counsel for

petitioner that approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 in

absence of digital signature is not an approval in the eyes of

law, is not correct. Referring to provisions of Section 282A of

the Act of 1961, she submits that any document or notice shall

be deemed to be authenticated if the name and office of a

designated income-tax authority is printed, stamped or

otherwise written thereon. There is specific mention of name

and designation of the authority, who had granted approval

under Section 151 of the Act of 1961, in Annexure P-5. Hence,

this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is not

acceptable. The Assessing Officer has also issued notice under

Section 142 of the Act of 1961 for furnishing details of accounts

and documents specified in Annexure to notice. Hence, there is

compliance of 4th Paragraph of the Standard Procedure dated

1.10.2018 for recording satisfaction as issued by the Central

Board of Direct Taxes. In 4th Paragraph of Standard

Procedure, it is mentioned that enquiry which is to be made by

Assessing Officer must have a live-link with the information

received / collected / found by him. In view of contents of 4 th

Paragraph, it is Assessing Officer who has to link the procedure

initiated by him with the proceedings of information received/

collected by other officers also. Here in this case, the DDIT

issued summons under Section 131 of the Act of 1961 and

when reply of petitioner was not found satisfactory, the DDIT

forwarded the case to Assessing Officer. Thus, there is

compliance of the provisions of 4th Paragraph of Standard

Procedure dated 10.1.2018.

Learned counsel submits that the word 'reasons to

believe' as used under the Act of 1961 has to be considered in

wider sense and in support of her submission, she places

reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Kalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT reported in (1976) 1 SCC 985;

Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO, Centre Circle XI, Range

Bombay & ors reported in (2008) 14 SCC 218. She submits

that in case of Kalyaji Mavji (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Para-9 has elaborately dealt with issue as to what will be

information received by Assessing Officer.

She further contended that this Court while considering

challenge to notice issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961

held that scope of interference at the time of issuance of notice

under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 exercising judicial review

is very limited and it is to be seen whether procedure prescribed

under the Statute, which is pre-condition for issuance of notice

under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, is complied with or not,

and not the merits of claim of petitioner. In support of her

contention she places reliance on the judgment of Division

Bench of this High Court dated 14.2.2020 in Writ Appeal

No.399/2019, parties being Hariom Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. vs.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.

She submits that in view of above facts of the case and

dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court in above

rulings, there is no substance in this petition.

4. At this stage learned counsel for petitioner would submit that

submission of learned counsel for respondents that notice

issued under Section 142 (1) of the Act of 1961 by Assessing

Officer is before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act

of 1961 is not correct, as notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act

of 1961 is issued only in the month of December, 2021,

whereas notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 is issued

in the month of March, 2021. From the fact of issuance of notice

under Section 142 (1) by the Assessing Officer itself it is clear

that Assessing Officer at the time of issuing notice under

Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was not having sufficient material

for reasons to believe that petitioner escaped assessment.

Hence, impugned notice be quashed. He also pointed out that

Section 282A (1) of the Act of 1961 is in two parts, therefore,

submission of learned counsel for respondent that mentioning

of name and designation of authority will authenticate

documents, is not correct. He submits that the Act of 1961, as

prevailing in the year 2017-18, or issuance of notice under

Section 148 of the Act of 1961, it is mandatory and pre-

condition to record satisfaction of reasons to believe by

Assessing Officer and it is not for him to consider mode of

information received as it was prevailing in the Act of 1961 prior

to the year 2017-18.

5. Learned counsel for respondents would submit that submission

of learned counsel for petitioner with respect to digital signature

in approval under Section 151of the Act of 1961 is also not

correct for the reason that when there is mention of DIN and

Document Number in the notice, the signature of designated

authority becomes immaterial because DIN & Document

Number is issued based on code provided to a particular

officer. She places her reliance upon Instructions dated

4.3.2021 (Annexure R2 to 4/2) issued by Ministry of Finance,

Govt. of India, New Delhi

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

7. So far as first submission of learned counsel for petitioner that

before issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 the

Assessing Officer has material to record reasons to believe that

income chargeable to tax escaped assessment for that year.

Perusal of documents placed on record by petitioner as also

respondents would show that on demand being made by

petitioner, the Assessing Officer supplied copy of reasons

recorded which led him to believe that income escaped

assessment. While recording reasons, the Assessing Officer

discussed dates and events as also proceedings drawn by the

DDIT for issuance of summons under Section 131A of the Act of

1961 to the bank of petitioner. Further, summons under Section

131 of the Act of 1961 was also issued by the DDIT calling upon

petitioner to produce evidence and relevant documents of all

cash deposits made in four bank accounts during period of

demonetization. The DDIT recorded that entire cash deposits

has not been declared and found part of total deposit as

unexplained cash deposit, which was forwarded to the

Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer verified PAN details

available on ITBA and came to conclusion that amount of

Rs.22,17,720/- remained unexplained for financial year 2016-

17. Reasons for issuance of notice under Section 148, as

recorded in proposal, would reflect that Assessing Officer has

considered present case to be of escapement of income from

assessment under clause (b) of Explanation-2 to Section 147 of

the Act of 1961. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kalyanji

Mavji (supra) while dealing with provisions of Section 34 of the

Income Tax Act, 1922 has held thus:-

"Another pertinent fact which may be mentioned here is that although Section 34 was the subject of several amendments, yet the word `information' which was introduced in 1939 has not been defined at all. Since the word `information' has not been defined, it is difficult to lay down any rule of universal application. At the same time it cannot be disputed that the object of the Act was to see that the tax collecting machinery is made as perfect and effective as possible so that the tax-payer is not allowed to get away with escaped Income-tax. The fact that the adjective `definite' qualified the word `information' and the word `discovers' which were introduced in the Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 1939 were deleted by the Amendment Act of 1948 would lead to the irresistible inference that the word `information' is of the widest amplitude and comprehends a variety of factors. Nevertheless the power under Section 34 (1) (b), however wide it may be, is not plenary because the discretion of the Income-tax officer is controlled by the word "reason to believe". It was so held by this Court in Bhimraj Pannalal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1961) 41 ITR 221 (SC) : TC 51 R. 300, while affirming the decision of the Patna High Court in Bhimraj Panna Lal v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1957) 32 ITR 289 (Pat) : TC 51R 301. This legal proposition, however, is not disputed. It, therefore, follows that information may come from external sources or even from materials already on the record or may be derived from the discovery of new and important matter or fresh facts. The word `information"

will also include true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions either of the

Income-tax authorities or other courts of law which decide income-tax matters. Where the ground on which the original assessment is based is held to be erroneous by a superior court in some other case, that will also amount to a fresh information which comes into existence subsequent to the original assessment. A subsequent Privy Council decision is also included in the word `information'. Thus it is very difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule. But this Court has in two leading cases laid down some objective tests and principles to determine the applicability of Section 34 (1) (b) of the Act which we shall now discuss.

xxx xxx xxx An analysis of this case would clearly show that the information as contained in Section 34 (1) (b) must fulfil the following conditions:

(1) The information may be derived from an external source concerning facts or particulars as to law relating to matter bearing on the assessment;

(2) That the information must come after the previous or the original assessment was made. In fact the words "in consequence of information" as used in Section 34 (1) (b) clearly postulate that the information must be subsequent to the original assessment sought to be reopened; and (3) That the information may be obtained even on the basis of the record of the previous assessment from an investigation of the materials on the record, or the facts- disclosed thereby or from other enquiry or research into facts or law.

These categories are in addition to the categories laid down by this Court in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh's

case which has been consistently followed in several decisions of this Court as shown above.

On a combined review of the decisions of this Court the following tests and principles would apply to determine the applicability of Section 34 (1) (b) to the following categories of cases:

(1) Where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions;

(2) Where in the original assessment the income liable to tax has escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the Income-tax officer. This is obviously based on the principle that the tax- payer would not be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mistake committed by the Taxing Authority;

(3) Where the information is derived from an external source of any kind. Such external source would include discovery of new and important matters or knowledge of fresh facts which were not present at the time of the original assessment;

(4) Where the information may be obtained even from the record of the original assessment from an investigation of the materials on the record, or the facts disclosed thereby or from other enquiry or research into facts or law.

If these conditions are satisfied then the Income-tax officer would have complete jurisdiction to re-open the original assessment. It is obvious that where the Income-tax officer gets no subsequent information, but merely proceeds to re-open the original assessment without any fresh facts or materials or without any

enquiry into the materials which form part of the original assessment, Section 34 (1) (b) would have no application."

8. In case at hand, the DDIT on the basis of information issued

summons to assessee. In reply to summons, the assessee

failed to satisfactorily explain source of cash deposit of

Rs.22,17,720/- during demonetization period. Based on said

information, Assessing Officer verified PAN details and recorded

reasons to believe that cash deposit to the tune of

Rs.22,17,720/- remained unexplained, which falls under clause

(b) of Explanation to Section 147 of the Act of 1961. In case of

Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court

while considering validity of reassessment notice has observed

thus:-

"From a combined review of the judgements of this Court, it follows that an Income-tax Officer acquires jurisdiction to reopen assessment under Section 147

(a) read with Section 148 of the Income Tax 1961 only if on the basis of specific, reliable and relevant information coming to his possession subsequently, he has reasons which he must record, to believe that by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for his assessment during the concluded assessment proceedings, any part of his income, profit or gains chargeable to income tax has escaped assessment. He may start reassessment proceedings either because some fresh facts come to light which where not previously disclosed or some information with regard to the facts previously disclosed comes into his possession which

tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts. In such situations, it is not a case of mere change of opinion or the drawing of a different inference from the same facts as were earlier available but acting on fresh information. Since, the belief is that of the Income-tax Officer, the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief, is not for the Court to judge but it is open to an assessee to establish that there in fact existed no belief or that the belief was not at all a bona fide one or was based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information. To that limited extent, the Court may look into the conclusion arrived at by the Income-tax Officer and examine whether there was any material available on the record from which the requisite belief could be formed by the Income-tax Officer and further whether that material had any rational connection or a live link for the formation of the requisite belief.."

9. In aforementioned ruling, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that

reassessment proceedings can be started on fresh facts or

some information with regard to fact previously disclosed comes

into his possession which tends to expose the untruthfulness of

those facts and that situations will not be a case of mere

change of opinion or drawing of a different inference from the

same facts. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that

sufficiency of reasons for forming this belief is not for the Court

to judge, but it is open to an assessee to establish that there

exists fact not belief or that belief was not at all bona fide one.

In present case, reasons assigned for issuance of proposal

under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 clearly mentions about

application of mind by Assessing Officer based on information

received from the DDIT and also about verification of PAN

details of assessee.

10. In case of Raymond Wollen Mills (supra) Hon'ble Supreme

Court while considering challenge to issuance of notice under

Section 148 of the Act of 1961 has held thus:-

"3.In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the Department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening of the case in the facts of this case. It will be open to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous. The assessee may also prove that no new facts came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer after completion of the assessment proceeding. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The questions of fact and law are left open to be investigated and decided by the assessing authority. The appellant will be entitled to take all the points before the assessing authority. The appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs."

11. In aforementioned ruling Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in

categorical terms that at the stage of issuance of notice for

reopening of assessment, the Court is only to see whether

there was prima facie material on the basis of which department

could reopen the case and not the sufficiency or correctness of

material to be considered.

12. If the facts of present case are tested in light of aforementioned

rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the DDIT

issued summons under Section 131 of the Act of 1961 to the

assessee. Reply submitted by assessee was not found to be

satisfactory. Matter was forwarded to the Assessing Officer,

who in turn, verified PAN details of assessee, recorded reasons

in terms of Section 147 of the Act of 1961 and thereafter issued

notice to him under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. Hence, it

cannot be said that at the stage of issuance of notice, there was

no prima facie material for reasons to belief that income

escaped assessment. Consequently, I do not find any force in

first submission of learned counsel for petitioner and it is hereby

repelled.

13. Coming to second submission of learned counsel for petitioner

that approval accorded under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 is

not by appropriate authority. Approval under Section 151 of the

Act of 1961 is dated 30.3.2021 (Annexure P-5) and as per

submission of learned counsel for respondent, in column

headed as 'Recommendation Details' name and designation

of officer mentioned is 'Joint Commissioner of Income Tax'.

Proposal was approved by the Principal Commissioner of

Income Tax. Submission of learned counsel for respondent that

name of officer mentioned in column headed as

'Recommendation Details' holds the post of Joint Commissioner

of Income Tax, is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner.

As against "Recommendation Remarks' under column headed

as 'Recommendation Details', the Joint Commissioner of

Income Tax mentioned that "I am satisfied with the reason

recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for issue of notice

u/s 148 of IT Act 1961'. The words used while recommending

for issuance of notice are sufficient to infer in clear terms that

the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax applied his mind on

proposal sent to him by the Assessing Officer, recorded his

satisfaction for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act

of 1961. Hence, in view of aforementioned facts, even if name

of approving authority is mentioned to be 'Principal

Commissioner of Income Tax', the same would not make the

'approval' itself invalid. The object of Section 151 of the Act of

1961 is that approval to be accorded by the Joint Commissioner

of Income Tax (in the facts of case) and if Joint Commissioner

approves the proceedings/ proposal sent by the Assessing

Officer to be a fit case, then, in the opinion of this Court, the

approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 giving details of

approving authority as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax in

itself will not make the approval invalid. Reliance on the

judgment delivered in case of Ghanshyam K Khabrani

(supra) placed by learned counsel for petitioner to support his

contention that approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 is

not in accordance with law, is of no help being distinguishable

on facts. In aforementioned case, proposal forwarded by

Assessing Officer to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,

who only recorded gist and sought approval. There was no

application of mind by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax by

recording his satisfaction as required under Section 151 of the

Act of 1961. Provisions under Section 151 (2) of the Act of 1961

mandates the satisfaction of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.

In case at hand, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax recorded

satisfaction on the proposal of Assessing Officer by mentioning

that it is a fit case for issuance of notice. In view of above facts

of the case, second ground raised is also not tenable.

14. Third submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that

approval granted under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 does not

bear digital signature of authority, referring to note appended to

approval (Annexure P-5), is concerned, the note appended

says "if digitally signed, the date of digital signature may be

taken as date of document". Submission of learned counsel for

petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, is not acceptable in view

of provisions of Section 282 (a) of the Act of 1961, which

provides that notice or other documents to be issued for the

purpose of the Act of 1961 by any income-tax authority shall be

deemed to be authenticated if name and designation is

provided. In approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961,

name, designation and office is printed. Hence, submission of

learned counsel for petitioner that approval is not digitally

signed is also not sustainable, more so when it bears DIN &

Document Number.

15. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this

petition, the same is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-