Wpt v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Range

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Reserved on 07.03.2022Order delivered on 01/04/2022 WPT No. 28 of 2022 Jugal Kishore Paliwal S/o Late Ramavtar Paliwal, aged about51 years Proprietor of Shri Ji Rice Product, having his office at,Main Road, NH10, Post Sendri, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) Jugal Kishore Paliwal S/o Late Ramavtar Paliwal, aged about51 years Proprietor of Shri Ji Rice Product, having his office at,Main Road, NH10, Post Sendri, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1, Bilaspur, IncomeTax Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur,District Bilaspur 495001 (CG) Tax Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur,District Bilaspur 495001 (CG) 2. The Income Tax Officer/ Assessing Officer, Having Office At,Ward 2(1), Vyapar Vihar, District Bilaspur (CG)Ward 2(1), Vyapar Vihar, District Bilaspur (CG) 3. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Through Additional/Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxDepartment, Ministry of Finance (Goi), Room No. 356 C.R.Building, IP Estate, New Delhi, Delhi- 110002. Joint/ Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxDepartment, Ministry of Finance (Goi), Room No. 356 C.R.Building, IP Estate, New Delhi, Delhi- 110002. ---- Respondents WPT No. 31 of 2022 M/s Saraswati Agro Industries A Partnership Firm, Having Its OfficeAt, Ward No. 12, Kesla, Post Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,Through Its Partner, Shri Manish Kumar Agrawal. At, Ward No. 12, Kesla, Post Bilha, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh,Through Its Partner, Shri Manish Kumar Agrawal. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1, Bilaspur, Income TaxDepartment, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur 495001, Chhattisgarh. Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, DistrictBilaspur 495001, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Income Tax Officer / Assessing Officer Ward 2(1) Having OfficeAt, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. At, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3. National Faceless Assessment Centre Through Additional / Joint /Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer,Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance (Goi), Room No. 356C.R. Building IP Estate, New Delhi, Delhi 110002. Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer,Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance (Goi), Room No. 356C.R. Building IP Estate, New Delhi, Delhi 110002. ---- Respondents WPT No. 37 of 2022 Smt. Vidhya Nagdeo W/o Shri Tikam Das Nagdeo Aged About63 Years Proprietor of Shri Yash Industries, Having Office At, Smt. Vidhya Nagdeo W/o Shri Tikam Das Nagdeo Aged About63 Years Proprietor of Shri Yash Industries, Having Office At, NH 130, Main Road, Post Bodri, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur,Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1, Bilaspur, IncomeTax Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur,District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh-495001 Tax Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur,District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh-495001 2. The Income Tax Officer/assessing Officer Having Office At,Ward 2(1), Vyapar Vihar, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Ward 2(1), Vyapar Vihar, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. NationalFacelessAssessmentCentreThroughAdditional/joint/deputy/assistant Commissioner Of Income TaxDepartment, Ministry Of Finance (Gol), Room No. 356 C.R.Building, IP Estate, New Delhi, Delhi-110002 Additional/joint/deputy/assistant Commissioner Of Income TaxDepartment, Ministry Of Finance (Gol), Room No. 356 C.R.Building, IP Estate, New Delhi, Delhi-110002 ---- Respondents For PetitionersFor Respondents 2. The Income Tax Officer/assessing Officer Having Office At,Ward 2(1), Vyapar Vihar, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Ward 2(1), Vyapar Vihar, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. NationalFacelessAssessmentCentreThroughAdditional/joint/deputy/assistant Commissioner Of Income TaxDepartment, Ministry Of Finance (Gol), Room No. 356 C.R.Building, IP Estate, New Delhi, Delhi-110002 Additional/joint/deputy/assistant Commissioner Of Income TaxDepartment, Ministry Of Finance (Gol), Room No. 356 C.R.Building, IP Estate, New Delhi, Delhi-110002 ---- Respondents For PetitionersFor Respondents :Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocates.:Mrs. Naushina Afrin Ali with Mr. Ajay Kumrani,Advocates on behalf of Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu CAV Order 1. Since common issue is involved in above three petitions, theywere heard together and are being decided by this commonorder. were heard together and are being decided by this commonorder. 2. Challenge in these three writ petitions is to the notice issuedunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'theAct of 1961'), for the assessment year 2016-17. under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'theAct of 1961'), for the assessment year 2016-17. 3. Facts of WPT No.28/2022 in brief are that petitioner is running arice mill in the name and style of M/s Shri Ji Rice Product.Petitioner submitted his return on 15.9.2016 for the assessmentyear 2016-17 declaring his total income as Rs.13,33,000/-. Hiscase was selected for compulsory scrutiny based on informationreceived regarding three suspicious transaction reports. Uponrice mill in the name and style of M/s Shri Ji Rice Product.Petitioner submitted his return on 15.9.2016 for the assessmentyear 2016-17 declaring his total income as Rs.13,33,000/-. Hiscase was selected for compulsory scrutiny based on informationreceived regarding three suspicious transaction reports. Upon examination, it revealed that petitioner obtained boguspurchase bills of Rs.1,73,83,410/- from M/s Shri Shyamji RiceAgrotech, M/s Navdurga Traders & M/s Shrinath Paddy Processand thereby income escaped assessment. 4. Facts of WPT No.31/2022 in brief are that petitioner is engagedin the business of running rice mill.. He submitted his return on30.9.2016 for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring totalincome at Rs.1,49,763/-. Based on information received fromIncome Tax Officer (Investigation) Raipur, an enquiry wasconducted in which it revealed that M/s Saraswati AgroIndustries credited Rs.30,00,000/- in the account of bogus entityrelated to M/s Deepak Nanjyani during financial year 2015-16and also obtained bogus purchase bills of Rs.34,20,000/- fromM/s Navdurga Traders and M/s Deepak Nanjyani. in the business of running rice mill.. He submitted his return on30.9.2016 for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring totalincome at Rs.1,49,763/-. Based on information received fromIncome Tax Officer (Investigation) Raipur, an enquiry wasconducted in which it revealed that M/s Saraswati AgroIndustries credited Rs.30,00,000/- in the account of bogus entityrelated to M/s Deepak Nanjyani during financial year 2015-16and also obtained bogus purchase bills of Rs.34,20,000/- fromM/s Navdurga Traders and M/s Deepak Nanjyani. 5. Facts of WPT No.37/2022 in brief are that petitioner is engagedin the business of running rice mill. She submitted her return on13.10.2016 for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring her totalincome as Rs.8,92,380/-. Petitioner's case was selected forcompulsory scrutiny based on information in form of surveyreport. As per information, petitioner has shown boguspurchases from M/s Nav Durga Traders, proprietor of which isShri Vijay Kumar Sharma. M/s Nav Durga Traders is bogusentity having no genuine business. in the business of running rice mill. She submitted her return on13.10.2016 for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring her totalincome as Rs.8,92,380/-. Petitioner's case was selected forcompulsory scrutiny based on information in form of surveyreport. As per information, petitioner has shown boguspurchases from M/s Nav Durga Traders, proprietor of which isShri Vijay Kumar Sharma. M/s Nav Durga Traders is bogusentity having no genuine business. 6. All three petitioners were served with notice under Section 148of the Act of 1961. of the Act of 1961. 6. All three petitioners were served with notice under Section 148of the Act of 1961. of the Act of 1961. 7. Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel for petitioners in above writpetitions would submit that respondent Department had issuednotice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 without there beingany reason to believe in terms of Section 147 of the Act of 1961that income of assessees has escaped assessment. TheAssessing Officer has not supplied reasons to believe alongwith notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. Material basedupon which Assessing Officer recorded reason to believe wasnot supplied nor sanction/ approval under Section 151 of the Actof 1961 was supplied. On receipt of impugned notice underSection 148 of the Act of 1961, petitioners submitted anapplication (Annexure P-2) before the Assessing Officer forproviding copy of reasons recorded for issuance of notice underSection 148 of the Act of 1961 along with documents reliedupon as also copy of sanction / approval granted by the JointCommissioner of Income Tax under Section 151 of the Act of1961. Respondents along with Covering Memo dated 27.9.2021(Annexure P-3) supplied Annexure-A containing reasons forproceeding under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, but copy ofsanction/approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 was notsupplied. Petitioners made reminder request for providing copyof sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 on30.9.2021 but the same was not provided to them. As time wasrunning, petitioners submitted objections (Annexure P-5) tonotice issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. In theobjection petitioners raised specific grounds amongst other ofnon-supply of copy of sanction/approval granted under Sectionpetitions would submit that respondent Department had issuednotice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 without there beingany reason to believe in terms of Section 147 of the Act of 1961that income of assessees has escaped assessment. TheAssessing Officer has not supplied reasons to believe alongwith notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. Material basedupon which Assessing Officer recorded reason to believe wasnot supplied nor sanction/ approval under Section 151 of the Actof 1961 was supplied. On receipt of impugned notice underSection 148 of the Act of 1961, petitioners submitted anapplication (Annexure P-2) before the Assessing Officer forproviding copy of reasons recorded for issuance of notice underSection 148 of the Act of 1961 along with documents reliedupon as also copy of sanction / approval granted by the JointCommissioner of Income Tax under Section 151 of the Act of1961. Respondents along with Covering Memo dated 27.9.2021(Annexure P-3) supplied Annexure-A containing reasons forproceeding under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, but copy ofsanction/approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 was notsupplied. Petitioners made reminder request for providing copyof sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 on30.9.2021 but the same was not provided to them. As time wasrunning, petitioners submitted objections (Annexure P-5) tonotice issued under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. In theobjection petitioners raised specific grounds amongst other ofnon-supply of copy of sanction/approval granted under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 to be against the principles of naturaljustice. Objections submitted by petitioners were decided.Along with copy of decision taken on objection, copy ofsanction/approval granted under Section 151 of the Act of 1961was also supplied to petitioners. The sanction/approval underSection 151 of the Act of 1961 was not signed by the authorityconcerned. Sanction / approval letter only mentions “fit case”which shows that authority granting approval has not appliedmind and granted sanction in a mechanical manner. As perinformation of petitioners, record was not forwarded byAssessing Officer to the approving authority; unless and untilentire material is forwarded, there cannot be satisfaction ofauthority approving proposal for issuance of notice underSection 148 of the Act of 1961. The notice issued under Section148 of the Act of 1961 is not sustainable and it is liable to bequashed. He submits that proposal for issuance of notice wassent to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax on 31.3.2021,sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 wasgranted on the same day, hence time of grant of sanction ishaving significance. In the notice impugned there is mention ofdate and time by authority but in the sanction/approval date andtime is not mentioned. It is contended that requirement underthe Act of 1961 is that sanction/approval should be prior to thedate and time of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Actof 1961. Time is relevant because 31.3.2021 is the last date forinitiating proceeding of reassessment (within four years). Thereis apprehension of petitioners that on the date of issuance of notice, there was no sanction by the competent authority and inabsence of proper sanction under Section 151 of the Act of1961, issuance of notice under Section 148 is illegal. In supportof his contention, he places reliance upon the decision ofBombay High Court dated 21.12.2021 in case of Svitzer HaziraPvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & orsreported in Writ Petition No.3554/2019. Learned Counsel further submitted that except in letter ofapproval/sanction, all the documents, which are forwarded tothe petitioners, bears digital signature of authority. In absenceof digital signature on sanction/approval under Section151 ofthe Act of 1961, the same cannot be treated to be a validapproval. In absence of proper sanction/approval, notice underSection 148 of the Act of 1961 could not have been issued.Remarks of approving authority, as appearing in approval underSection 151 of the Act of 1961, would show that there is totalnon-application of mind and approval, if any, has been grantedin a mechanical manner. The Joint Commissioner of IncomeTax, who is higher authority, is having important responsibility toconsider material placed before him recording reasons tobelieve by Assessing Officer and after analysing reasonsrecorded by Assessing Officer, higher authority like JointCommissioner of Income Tax or Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax can approve or reject proposal sent by theAssessing Officer. In case at hand, at the time of consideringproposal for grant of approval, no records and files were forwarded to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. Meremaking mention of 'fit case' or 'yes' in approval by the JointCommissioner of Income Tax or Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax while exercising powers under Section 151 of theAct of 1961 will not be considered to be sanction/approvalgranted after proper application of mind and in accordance withprovisions of the Act of 1961. Referring to decision in case ofCommissioner of Income Tax Jabalpur (MP) vs. M/s S.Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. reported in (2014) SCCOnline MP 4550, he submits that Division Bench of MadhyaPradesh High Court while dismissing appeal preferred by theCommissioner of Income Tax has observed that the JointCommissioner of Income Tax has only recorded “Yes, I amsatisfied” on the format, which indicates, as if, he was to signonly on the dotted line without application of mind. TheDepartment preferred Special Leave Petition No.11916/2015before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of DivisionBench of Madhya Pradesh High Court which came to bedismissed vide order dated 8.7.2015. In instant case also theJoint Commissioner of Income Tax has only mentioned “fit case”on approval which shows total non-application of mind by theauthority, hence impugned notice is liable to be quashed on thiscount alone. He contended that notice under Section 131 of the Act of1961 is also not issued to petitioners seeking clarification orexplanation. As per direction issued by the Department vide Notification of the year 2018, the Department is required toissue notice under Section 131, only after enquiry, proceedingunder Section 147 of the Act of 1961 could have been initiatedby the Assessing Officer. It is for the Assessing Officer to spellout all reasons and grounds available for reopening ofassessment, but the same are missing in case of petitioners.No specific reason to believe is recorded satisfying theAssessing Officer that there is tangible material for issuance ofnotice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. The AssessingOfficer has not conducted any inquiry, only based oninformation received from other sources, initiated proceedingsfor issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961.Information received from other sources does not fulfilrequirement of Section 147 of the Act of 1961. In support of his contention, he also places reliance upondecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India)Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer & ors reported in (2003) 1 SCC72; judgements of Delhi High Court in cases of FerrousInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax reported in 2015 SCC Online Del. 9693; SabhInfrastructure Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Taxreported in 2017 SCC Online Del 10863; PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt.Ltd. reported in 2017 SCC Online Del 8691; 8. Mrs. Naushina Aafrin Ali, learned counsel for respondentsvehemently opposes submissions of learned counsel forvehemently opposes submissions of learned counsel for In support of his contention, he also places reliance upondecision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India)Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer & ors reported in (2003) 1 SCC72; judgements of Delhi High Court in cases of FerrousInfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax reported in 2015 SCC Online Del. 9693; SabhInfrastructure Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Taxreported in 2017 SCC Online Del 10863; PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax-6 v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt.Ltd. reported in 2017 SCC Online Del 8691; 8. Mrs. Naushina Aafrin Ali, learned counsel for respondentsvehemently opposes submissions of learned counsel forvehemently opposes submissions of learned counsel for petitioners and submits that based on information collected/received by Assessing Officer about three suspicioustransactions of petitioner Jugalkishore Paliwal (WPTNo.28/2022), first related to M/s Navdurga Traders (Proprietor-Shri Vijay Kumar Shamra); second related to M/s ShrinathPaddy Process (Proprietor- Shri Amar Kumar Sahu) and thirdrelated to M/s Shri Shyamji Rice Agrotech (Proprietor- ShriSushil Kumar Maurya). Upon examination of all threesuspicious transactions, it revealed that petitioner Jugal KishorePaliwal had obtained bogus purchase bills to the tune ofRs.1,73,83,410/- from aforementioned proprietorship firms inthe financial year 2015-16. Summons were issued underSection 131 (1A) of the Act of 1961 to Shri Sushil KumarMaurya. During course of survey proceedings, entry providersand other stated on oath that they have provided bogus entriesor bogus bills to various rice millers. During financial year2015-16 petitioner has obtained bogus purchase bills worthRs.55,96,940/- from M/s Shri Shyamji Rice Agrotech;Rs.73,90,000/- from M/s Navdurga Traders. Money of petitionerwas routed through bank account of M/s Shrinath PaddyProcess at Bank of Bardoa. In case of petitioner M/s Saraswati Agro Industries (WPTNo.31/2022), upon receiving suspicious transaction report fromthe Income Tax Officer (Investigation), Raipur, an enquiry wasconducted in which it revealed that during financial year 2015-16 petitioner has taken bogus purchase bills of Rs.34,20,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- from M/s Navdurga Traders and M/sDeepak Nanjiyani respectively, which are bogus entities. In case of petitioner Smt. Vidhya Nagdeo (WPTNo.37/2022) upon receiving suspicious transaction report fromthe Income Tax Officer (Investigation), Raipur, it revealed thatpetitioner, who is Proprietor of M/s Yash Industries, Bilaspur,took bogus purchase bills of Rs.80,03,876/- from M/s NavdurgaTraders during financial year 2015-16. Based upon aforementioned material, the AssessingOfficer formed reasons to believe that income of respectivepetitioners escaped assessment. There was prima faciematerial available with Assessing Officer based upon which herecorded reasons to believe that income of assessees' escapedassessment. Hence, there is due compliance of provisions ofSection 147 of the Act of 1961. She submits that submission oflearned counsel for petitioners that at the time of issuance ofnotice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, properapproval/sanction under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 was notthere, is not correct. Screen shot of ITBA Portal is filed alongwith additional reply dated 7.3.2022 which clearly mentions asto proceedings initiated by Assessing Officer and on 31.3.2021print approval was uploaded. In ITBA portal unless and until theapproval is uploaded, the portal will not allow uploading ofnotice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. She further contended that submission of learned counsel She further contended that submission of learned counsel for petitioners that digital signature is not available in sanction/approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,which makes the approval itself invalid, is not correct. Referringto Section 282 (A) of the Act of 1961, she submits that thisSection provides that mentioning of name and designation ofauthority on any document is sufficient for its authentication.Every income tax authority is provided with separate DIN &Document Number; in approval granted under Section 151 ofthe Act of 1961, DIN & Document Number is specificallymentioned. She relied upon Notification No.4/2017 issued byCBDT dated 3.4.2017 in support of her contention.Furthermore, approval/sanction under Section 151 of the Act of1961 is an internal correspondence and exchange of documentbetween authorities, hence it is identified by DIN & Documentnumber. In approval/sanction under Section 151 of the Act of1961, the authority concerned has mentioned “yes, fit”, which ismentioned only after due application of mind. The High Court ofGujarat in case of Lalita Ashwin vs. State of Gujarat reportedin Special Civil Application Nos.1626 & 1627/2014 hasobserved that only because the Joint Commissioner of IncomeTax granted approval by writing 'yes' to the reasons recorded,the notice of reopening cannot fail. Hence, submission oflearned counsel for petitioners that there is no application ofmind by authority concerned is not correct. Approval/sanctionhas been supplied little late to the petitioners but the factremains that prior to issuance of notice under Section 148 of theAct of 1961, there was due approval/sanction by competent authority for issuance of notice, as reflecting from Page No.14of additional reply i.e. screen shot of web portal. The onlyrequirement of approving authority is to approve or reject orsent back proposal. In case at hand, the approving authorityhas mentioned 'yes, fit'. Proper reasons are recorded in termsof Section 147 of the Act of 1961 and further proper approval/sanction was accorded by authority competent, as requiredunder Section 151 of the Act of 1961 before issuance of noticeunder Section 148 of the Act of 1961. Hence, petitioners are notentitled for any relief as claimed in these petitions and the sameare liable to be dismissed. She places her reliance in cases ofKalyanji Mavji & Co. v. CIT reported in (1976) 1 SCC 985; M/S.Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs Income-Tax Officer reported in(1993) 4 SCC 77; ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri reported in (2008)14 SCC 208; Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO, CentreCircle XI, Range Bombay & ors reported in (2008) 14 SCC218. 9. In reply, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that inWPT No.37/2022 copy of approval/sanction granted underSection 151 of the Act of 1961 was provided only on 16.2.2022.He also pointed out that in all these writ petitions, applicationwas forwarded to the National Faceless Assessment Centre,New Delhi for not providing relevant material/ information/documents and information. With respect to certain informationsought by petitioners in letter dated 17.12.2021 it is mentionednot available in the office of Income Tax Officer, Bilaspur. WPT No.37/2022 copy of approval/sanction granted underSection 151 of the Act of 1961 was provided only on 16.2.2022.He also pointed out that in all these writ petitions, applicationwas forwarded to the National Faceless Assessment Centre,New Delhi for not providing relevant material/ information/documents and information. With respect to certain informationsought by petitioners in letter dated 17.12.2021 it is mentionednot available in the office of Income Tax Officer, Bilaspur. 13 13 10. At this stage, Mrs. Naushina Afreen Ali, learned counsel forrespondents would submit that along with copy of rejection ofobjection, notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act of 1961 wasalso issued to the respective petitioners. Petitioners can verywell explain to authority concerned about return submitted bythem under Section 139 of the Act of 1961.respondents would submit that along with copy of rejection ofobjection, notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act of 1961 wasalso issued to the respective petitioners. Petitioners can verywell explain to authority concerned about return submitted bythem under Section 139 of the Act of 1961. 11.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thedocuments placed on record by respective parties.documents placed on record by respective parties. 12. So far as submission of learned counsel for petitioners thatthere was no proper sanction/approval on the date of issuanceof notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 is concerned,provision under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 provides for“sanction for issuance of notice”. Authority prescribed for grantof sanction/approval within four years of relevant assessmentyear is the 'Joint Commissioner of Income Tax'. Under Section151 (2) of the Act of 1961 the Joint Commissioner is required torecord his satisfaction on the reasons recorded by AssessingOfficer. Respondents along with their additional reply haveplaced on record copy of screen shot of ITBA web portal inwhich there is mention of 'print approval' against name ofrespective petitioner with DIN number showing status to begenerated with an option to view attachments. From the screenshot placed on record by respondents along with their additionalreturn, accord of sanction/approval with DIN number ofauthority showing status to be generated on 31.3.2021, primafacie it cannot be said that there was no sanction/approval forthere was no proper sanction/approval on the date of issuanceof notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 is concerned,provision under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 provides for“sanction for issuance of notice”. Authority prescribed for grantof sanction/approval within four years of relevant assessmentyear is the 'Joint Commissioner of Income Tax'. Under Section151 (2) of the Act of 1961 the Joint Commissioner is required torecord his satisfaction on the reasons recorded by AssessingOfficer. Respondents along with their additional reply haveplaced on record copy of screen shot of ITBA web portal inwhich there is mention of 'print approval' against name ofrespective petitioner with DIN number showing status to begenerated with an option to view attachments. From the screenshot placed on record by respondents along with their additionalreturn, accord of sanction/approval with DIN number ofauthority showing status to be generated on 31.3.2021, primafacie it cannot be said that there was no sanction/approval for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. Alongwith additional return respondents have further placed onrecord approval/sanction granted under Section 151 dated31.3.2021 which contains similar DIN Number as is mentionedin screen shot of ITBA web portal placed on record. Petitionershave also annexed approval/sanction granted under Section151 of the Act of 1961 as Annexure P-6 to writ petition. DINNumber is mentioned in Annexure P-6. Nothing has beenbrought on record by petitioners to show that any objection wasraised by them to the effect that DIN number is incorrect or itwas not generated on 31.3.2021, except raising objectionbefore this Court with respect to manner in which sanction/approval is granted, as is appearing in sanction order. In viewof aforementioned facts of case, submission of learned counselfor petitioners that notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961is issued without there being any sanction/approval from thecompetent authority is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled. 13. Ruling of the Bombay High Court in Svitzer Hazira's case(supra) on which heavy reliance is placed by learned counselfor petitioners is of no help to petitioners being based ondifferent facts. In that case, time of issuance of notice as alsotime of granting sanction is specifically mentioned in thedocument. Considering both the documents, the Court held thatnotice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 was issued prior togrant of sanction/approval by competent authority. Timementioned in sanction / approval is 15 minutes after the time of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. Inthese circumstances, Division Bench of Bombay High Court haspassed the order. 14. Another submission of learned counsel for petitioners is thatthere was no proper application of mind by authority grantingapproval/sanction. Section 151 of the Act of 1961 deals withsanction for issue of notice. Sub-section (2) of Section 151requires that the authority granting sanction/approval must besatisfied on the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer that it isa fit case for issuance of such notice. In case at hand, on thebasis of analysis of information collected/received and findingsthereon, the Assessing Officer elaborately recorded reasons tobelieve in Annexure-A that income of petitioners escapedassessment and sought permission to proceed under Section148 of the Act of 1961. Based on reasons to believe recordedby Assessing Officer in Annexure-A, the approving authoritygranted approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961. At thisstage, this Court is to consider whether notices under Section148 of the Act of 1961 issued to petitioners are after followingthe procedure prescribed under the law or not. In the facts ofthe case, I do not find any substance in submission of learnedcounsel for petitioners that sanction/approval under Section 151of the Act of 1961 is bad in law and it is hereby repelled. there was no proper application of mind by authority grantingapproval/sanction. Section 151 of the Act of 1961 deals withsanction for issue of notice. Sub-section (2) of Section 151requires that the authority granting sanction/approval must besatisfied on the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer that it isa fit case for issuance of such notice. In case at hand, on thebasis of analysis of information collected/received and findingsthereon, the Assessing Officer elaborately recorded reasons tobelieve in Annexure-A that income of petitioners escapedassessment and sought permission to proceed under Section148 of the Act of 1961. Based on reasons to believe recordedby Assessing Officer in Annexure-A, the approving authoritygranted approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961. At thisstage, this Court is to consider whether notices under Section148 of the Act of 1961 issued to petitioners are after followingthe procedure prescribed under the law or not. In the facts ofthe case, I do not find any substance in submission of learnedcounsel for petitioners that sanction/approval under Section 151of the Act of 1961 is bad in law and it is hereby repelled. 15. The judgment in case of S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd.(supra) relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners isconcerned, in that case petitioner therein submitted objection(supra) relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners isconcerned, in that case petitioner therein submitted objection 15. The judgment in case of S. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd.(supra) relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners isconcerned, in that case petitioner therein submitted objection(supra) relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners isconcerned, in that case petitioner therein submitted objection which was rejected. Final assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961 was passed. Assessee aggrieved byassessment order filed appeal. Appellate authority consideringentire record and material has held that the authority accordedsanction not applied his mind and it was done in mechanicalmanner. In case at hand that stage is still to come andpetitioners will have the opportunity to raise grounds beforeappellate authority. Satisfaction recorded by sanctioning/approving authority is to be considered based on facts of eachcase. In this proceeding where challenge is to the issuance ofnotice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, sufficiency orcorrectness of material for reopening of assessment will not bethe consideration. In the opinion of this Court the word 'fit case'mentioned in 'sanction order / approval under Section 151 ofthe Act of 1961' is to be tested along with the reasons' recordedby the Assessing Officer and records of the proceedings. 16. Coming to next submission of learned counsel for petitioners that there was no tangible material available for re-opening ofassessment. Perusal of reasons assigned prima facie showsthat Assessing Officer based on information of suspicioustransactions report from the Income Tax Officer (Investigation)has verified transactions. Notice under Section131A of the Actof 1961 was also issued and statements were recordedincluding of one Sushil Kumar Maurya. Based on statements,Assessing Officer recorded that petitioners obtained boguspurchase bills during relevant period. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Phoolchand Bajrang Lal vs. Income TaxOfficer reported in (1993) 4 SCC 77 has observed thatAssessing Officer can start re-assessment proceeding whenfresh facts come to light which were not previously disclosed.Relevant part of judgment is quoted below for ready reference:- “From a combined review of the judgements of thisCourt, it follows that an Income-tax Officer acquiresjurisdiction to reopen assessment under Section 147 (a)read with Section 148 of the Income Tax 1961 only if onthe basis of specific, reliable and relevant informationcoming to his possession subsequently, he has reasonswhich he must record, to believe that by reason ofomission or failure on the part of the assessee to makea true and full disclosure of all material facts necessaryfor his assessment during the concluded assessmentproceedings, any part of his income, profit or gainschargeable to income tax has escaped assessment. Hemay start reassessment proceedings either becausesome fresh facts come to light which where notpreviously disclosed or some information with regard tothe facts previously disclosed comes into his possessionwhich tends to expose the untruthfulness of those facts.In such situations, it is not a case of mere change ofopinion or the drawing of a different inference from thesame facts as were earlier available but acting on freshinformation. Since, the belief is that of the Income-taxOfficer, the sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief,is not for the Court to judge but it is open to an assesseeto establish that there in fact existed no belief or that thebelief was not at all a bona fide one or was based onvague, irrelevant and non-specific information. To thatlimited extent, the Court may look into the conclusionarrived at by Income-tax Officer and examine whetherthere was any material available on the record from which the requisite belief could be formed by theIncome-tax Officer and further whether that material hadany rational connection or a live link for the formation ofthe requisite belief..” which the requisite belief could be formed by theIncome-tax Officer and further whether that material hadany rational connection or a live link for the formation ofthe requisite belief..” 17. In case of Raymond Wollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO Centre Excise XI, Range Bombay & ors reported in (2008) 14 SCC 218Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering as to sufficiency ofreasons to believe at the stage of issuance of notice underSection 148 of the Act of 1961 has held thus:- “3.In this case, we do not have to give a final decisionas to whether there is suppression of material facts bythe assessee or not. We have only to see whether therewas prima facie some material on the basis of which theDepartment could reopen the case. The sufficiency orcorrectness of the material is not a thing to beconsidered at this stage. We are of the view that thecourt cannot strike down the reopening of the case inthe facts of this case. It will be open to the assessee toprove that the assumption of facts made in the noticewas erroneous. The assessee may also prove that nonew facts came to the knowledge of the Income-taxOfficer after completion of the assessment proceeding.We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of thecase. The questions of fact and law are left open to beinvestigated and decided by the assessing authority.The appellant will be entitled to take all the pointsbefore the assessing authority. The appeals aredismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” 18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in above rulings has held that at thestage of issuance of notice for re-opening of assessment, theCourt is only require to see whether there is prima facie material available on the basis of which department can reopencase and not sufficiency or correctness of material to beconsidered. Petitioners are having opportunity to reply to noticeunder Section 148 of the Act of 1961, participate in proceedingsand raise all grounds available to them in accordance with law.At this stage, this Court is only required to see whether there isprima facie material before the Assessing Officer to initiateproceedings and other requirements under the law, pre-condition i.e. of taking approval/sanction under Section 151 ofthe Act of 1961, before issuance of notice under Section 148 ofthe Act of 1961 is followed or not. 19. Next submission of learned counsel for petitioners is thatapproval/sanction granted under Section 151 of the Act of 1961has not been digitally signed and dated. In rebuttal, submissionof learned counsel for respondents is that as per provisions ofSection 282-A of the Act of 1961, mention of name ofcompetent authority sanction/approval is sufficient. Relevantportion of Section 282A of the Act of 1961 is extracted below forready reference:- "282A.Authentication of notices and otherdocuments.—(1) Where this Act requires a noticeor other document to be issued by any income-taxauthority, such notice or other document shall besigned and issued in paper form or communicatedin electronic form by that authority in accordancewith such procedure as may be prescribed. (2) Every notice or other document to be issued, served or given for the purposes of this Act by anyincome-tax authority, shall be deemed to beauthenticated if the name and office of adesignated income-tax authority is printed,stamped or otherwise written thereon. (3) For the purposes of this section, a designatedincome-tax authority shall mean any income-taxauthority authorised by the Board to issue, serveor give such notice or other document afterauthentication in the manner as provided in sub-section (2)." (2) Every notice or other document to be issued, served or given for the purposes of this Act by anyincome-tax authority, shall be deemed to beauthenticated if the name and office of adesignated income-tax authority is printed,stamped or otherwise written thereon. (3) For the purposes of this section, a designatedincome-tax authority shall mean any income-taxauthority authorised by the Board to issue, serveor give such notice or other document afterauthentication in the manner as provided in sub-section (2)." 20. Perusal of Section 282-A of the Act of 1961 would show that thisprovision is brought into by way of amendment for the purposeof authentication of notice and other documents. Sub-section(2) of Section 282-A of the Act of 1961 envisages that everynotice or other document to be issued, served or given for thepurpose of this Act by any Income Tax authority shall bedeemed to be authenticated if name and office of designatedincome tax authority is printed/stamped or otherwise writtenthereon. In view of specific provision under the Act of 1961, thedocument i.e. sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Act of1961 issued by Competent Authority in case of petitioners willbe deemed to be an authenticated document. In the 'Note'appended at the bottom of sanction/approval under Section 151of the Act of 1961, it is mentioned that “if digitally signed”, thedate of signature may be taken as date of document. Furthersubmission of learned counsel for respondents in this regard isthat approval is an inter-departmental correspondence; noticesissued to petitioners are digitally signed by Assessing Officer. Hence, in view of aforementioned provision of law as alsosubmission of learned counsel for respondents based on theNotification No.4/2017 dated 03.04.2017 documents grantingsanction/approval under Section 151 of the Act of 1961 cannotbe said to be an unauthenticated document. 21. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find present to be a fitcase to interfere with proceedings of re-assessment initiated byrespondent Department against petitioners upon issuance ofnotice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961.case to interfere with proceedings of re-assessment initiated byrespondent Department against petitioners upon issuance ofnotice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961. 22. Accordingly, all above three writ petitions stand dismissed. Sd/-(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-