Whether different figures in draft order u/s 148A(d) & in approval show that approval is mechanical? скачать в хорошем качестве

Whether different figures in draft order u/s 148A(d) & in approval show that approval is mechanical?

Link of full case : https://taxlawsonline.com/agtlol.html... [2025] 478 ITR 74 (Bombay High Court) Teleperformance Global Services Pvt. Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax and others K.R. Shriram and Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ. 19.03.2024 Playlist: 151, writ 151: Sanction for issue of notice A.Y: 2019-20/Assessee Question: Whether different figures in draft order u/s 148A(d) & in approval show that approval is mechanical? 1) The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148A(b), to the assessee, and having rejected the assessee's explanation passed an order under section 148A(d), for issue of notice under section 148. 2) Both the order and the notice had the Principal Commissioner's approval under section 151. 3) On a writ petition, it was held that the draft of the order under section 148A(d) of the Act stated that income of Rs. 97,06,911/- had escaped assessment within the meaning of the provisions of section 147 of the Act and required to be examined. 4) In column 7 of the approval, the quantum of income which had escaped assessment was mentioned as Rs. 63,16,784/-. 5) The approval under section 151 was obtained and granted without application of mind. 6) The Officer who had recommended the issuance of notice and the Principal Commissioner who had granted the approval had clearly not read the request for approval along with the draft order and had not noticed the discrepancies. 7) The Department's contention that this was merely a typographical error could not be accepted because while a typographical error could have been committed by the Assessing Officer who had sought the approval, if the Additional/Joint Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner had read the approval application and the draft order to be issued under section 148A(d), they would have certainly noticed the discrepancy and should have either refused approval or sent the application back to the Assessing Officer for filing the correct form for approval. 8) The court accordingly quashed and set aside the order under section 148A(d) and the consequent notice issued under section 148 for reassessment proceedings under section 147. #Teleperformance #Global #Services #Bombay #HighCourt #19March 32024 #section151 #Writ #IncomeTaxNotices #IncomeTaxCases #incometaxcasesanalysis #IncomeTaxLaw #advocateamitkumargupta #9811291390(Call only after taking time on whatsApp) #[email protected] #[email protected] Link for some important videos: 1) WHETHER TRIBUNAL CAN REMAND MATTER IN ENTIRETY WHERE DEPARTMENT DID NOT FILE CROSS APPEALS?- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkqMk... 2) WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TO CHALLENGE THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O THAT NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED?- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbZWh... 3) WHETHER EXTENDED TIME LIMIT U/S 149(1)(b) CAN BE USED ON THE BASIS OF SALES CONSIDERATION U/S 48?- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRt9... 4) WHETHER NOTICE SENT TO SECONDARY EMAIL IS VALID IF NOT SENT TO PRIMARY E-MAIL U/S 148?- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAzHE... 5) WHETHER ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CONCLUSIVE TO DETERMINE TAXABLE INCOME OF ASSESSEE?- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx8JQ...