Principal Com m issioner of I ncom e Tax Cent ral) Kanpur v. Raj an Raj esh Kum ar

of t he sheet , records a nam e ‘Sri Raj esh MD’ and t hat t he sam e refers t o t he respondent and t he am ount s and art icles, were direct ly received by t he assessee, in his capacit y as MD of SI DCUL. I t was also cont ended t hat t here is a close nexus bet ween t he assessee and t he said Am it Sharm a. 9 . Before t he Appellat e Tribunal, it was cont ended by t he respondent t hat t he A.O. has failed t o follow t he 3 m andat ory provisions of Sect ions 147 t o 151 of t he Act ; t hat t he file was first sent t o t he DCI T- Cent ral on 0 5 .0 9 .2 0 1 9 and t he file was sent for approval wit hin t he st ipulat ed period of four years. The Com pet ent Aut horit y u/ s 151, by proceedings dat ed 18.03.2020, refused t o grant sanct ion, on t he prem ise t hat t he reasons / grounds recorded by t he A.O. fail t o corroborat e t he cont ent s of page Nos. 186 & 187 nor are ot her m at erial / docum ent s placed t o dem onst rat e t he sam e. That t he A.O. has blindly prem ised his request for approval only on t he st rengt h of t he ent ries in page Nos. 186 & 187 wit hout any independent m at erial t o corroborat e t he sam e. That aft er t he refusal, t he JCI T ( OSD) once again recorded reasons and t his t im e forwarded t he sam e t o PCI T, Kanpur on 2 3 .0 6 .2 0 2 0 , by which t im e, t he period of four years from t he end of Assessm ent Year had passed- by. The assessee would part icularly point out t he regularly changing “ quant um of escaped incom e” . I n t he earliest proposal, t he escaped incom e was recorded as Rs. 16.72 crore. I n t he second proposal, t he escaped incom e was recorded as Rs. 13.16 crore. I t is furt her elaborat ed t hat t he reasons recorded were t he reasons t hat were not approved by t he Com pet ent Aut horit y during t he first round. The second proposal also did not com e t o fruit ion or rat her t he fat e of which is not m ade known. While so, again on 0 8 .1 0 .2 0 2 0 , ACI T, Dehradun 4 once again recorded t he reasons and forwarded t he proposal for approval t o PCI T, Kanpur u/ s 151 of t he Act and t his t im e, t he escaped incom e was recorded as Rs. 13.16 crore and Rs.

15.85 crore wit h Diary No. 756. The said proposal was not approved and it was recorded t hat t he officer placing t he proposal m ust discuss t he reasons in det ail. Yet again, on 0 7 .1 2 .2 0 2 0 , t he ACI T, Cent ral Circle, Dehradun sent one m ore proposal for t he 4 t h t im e and t he reasons were verbat im ( t his is vehem ent ly denied by t he appellant ’s Counsel who st at es t hat a 11 page not e was prepared, but for reasons t o be recorded lat er t his cont roversy is not of relevance) t o t he reasons set fort h earlier and t his t im e round, PCI T, Kanpur grant ed sanct ion wit hout raising any query or seeking clarificat ion. 1 0 . I t is cont ended t hat t he fact of non- applicat ion of m ind is reflect ed by t he fact t hat t he PCI T, who grant ed sanct ion / approval u/ s 151 of t he Act , is t he sam e aut horit y, who had t he Rule- 9 report Before t he Set t lem ent Com m ission, in t he case of t he said Am it Sharm a; t hat t he Com pet ent Aut horit y’s approval of t he reasons alleging incom e of Rs. 13.16 crore were cont rary t o his own observat ions m ade before t he Set t lem ent Com m ission. 1 1 . I n t ot o, it is cont ended t hat t he fact of lack of independent applicat ion of m ind is reflect ed by repet it ion of 5 t he reasons, which were earlier discarded and hence, t he approval is m echanically grant ed and t hat t oo wit hout looking int o m at erial records. That t he sanct ioning aut horit y has failed t o appreciat e t he fact t hat t he very sam e aut horit y as recorded a m ere rupees t went y lakhs as t he sum at t ribut able t o t he respondent . 1 2 . Before t he Tribunal, t he respondent relied on t he following j udicial pronouncem ent s and sought for set t ing aside t he assessm ent order and t he order of t he CI T ( A) : “ A. Ce n t r a l I n d i a El e ct r i c Su p p l y Co . Lt d v s . I TO ( 2 0 1 1 ) 3 3 3 I TR 2 3 7 ( D e l .) : 5 1 D TR 5 1 ( D e l .) B. CI T having m echanically grant ed approval reopening of assessm ent wit hout applicat ion of m ind, inv alid and not sust ainable.- [ Ge r m a n t he sam e Re m e d i e s Lt d . v s. D CI T ( 2 0 0 6 ) 2 8 7 I TR 4 9 4 ( Bo m .) ] C. Power grant ed u/ s 151 cannot be exer cised casually: - Un i t e d El e ct r i ca l Co . P. Lt d . v . CI T ( 2 0 0 2 ) 2 5 8 I TR 3 1 7 ( D e l .) D. CI T v s . Go y a n k a Li m e 2 3 7 Ta x m a n 3 7 8 ( SC) CI T v s. N .C. Ca b l e s- 9 8 CCH 1 8 ( D e l ) E. Be n ch .” Ch u g a M a l Ra j p a l - 7 9 I TR 6 0 3 ( SC) La r g e r 1 3 . Per cont ra, t he Revenue cont ended t hat t he approval grant ed is in accordance wit h law. 1 4 . The undisput ed fact is t hat act ion was init iat ed by t he A.O. under Sect ion 147 of t he Act on t he basis of t he docum ent s, i.e. LP 186 & 187 im pounded during t he course of t he search & survey operat ions conduct ed against Am it Sharm a and Ram Assay Sharm a. I t is not in disput e t hat no 6 ot her independent m at erial has been relied upon or placed before t he Tribunal or t his Court . 1 5 . The Tribunal has also m ade a copy of t he said Pages 186 & 187 as part of t he order and is found at Pages 11 and 12 of t he im pugned order. The Tribunal has also ext ract ed t he relevant port ion of t he proposals and t he sam e reads as under: - t he assessee survey ed. “ During t he period m ent ioned above Shri R. Raj esh Kum ar was post ed wit h SI DCUL and was holding t he post of M.D., and was having close nex us wit h Shri Am it Sharm a, During enquir ies conduct ed by I nv est igat ion Wing, it is found t hat Shri R. Raj esh Kum ar was residing in t he house ow ned by Shri Am it Sharm a. He was also person r esponsible of work of issuing work order of v arious cont ract s t o Shri Am it Sharm a and his concerns. Shri R. Raj esh Kum ar w as issued sum m ons / not ices by t he DDI T ( I nv) . Dehradun wit h t he r equest t o explain t hese ent ries appearing in t he t he hearing but lat er on he filed w rit t en subm issions denying knowledge of t hese ent ries, but he could not ext end any convincing t hese queries, as such his explanat ion is not wort hy of t rut h. I nit ially, he avoided im pounded m at erial. r eplies t o t o be friendly Furt her, t he ent r ies appearing in Annexur e A/ SE- 19 page 13 wer e also not explained sat isfact orily., Shri V.K. Raj an, Fat her of Shri R. Raej esh Kum ar t erm ed t hese ent ries is not corroborat ed from t he books of account s of Shri Am it Sharm aand his concerns. As such, t hese ent ries are act ually t he pay m ent by Shri Am it Sharm a and his concer ns t o Shri R. Raj esh Kum ar under t he cam ouflage of bank t ransfer t o Shir V.K.Raj an as Shir V.K. Raj an has received t hese paym ent for no visible reasons. loans. But t his claim I t is evident from t he abov e fact s t hat t he assessee had not t ruly and fully disclosed of his incom e for t he year under considerat ion t her eby necessit at ing reopening u/ s 147 of t he Act . I n view of t he above fact s of t his case and t he assessm ent year under considerat ion I have reasons t o believe t hat t he incom e char geable t o t ax t o t he ext ent of Rs. 16,72,73,160/ - has escaped 7 assessm ent . proceedings u/ s 147/ 148 of t he I .T. Act in t his case.” is proposed Therefor e, t o init iat e 1 6 . The Tribunal has also reproduced t he subm issions of t he very sam e PCI T m ade in t he report forwarded by t he PCI T under Rule- 9 t o t he Set t lem ent Com m ission in respect of t he set t lem ent proceedings in respect of Am it Sharm a, a sub- cont ract or of UPRNN. 1 7 . The said fact has been dealt wit h by t he Tribunal in Paragraph- 13. I n Paragraphs 11 and 12, t he Tribunal has recorded t he repet it ive ( five) proposals. I n Paragraph 14, t he Tribunal has observed t hat t he figure m ent ioned by t he very sam e PCI T, who accorded approval, was a sum of Rs. 20 Lacs t o t he assessee and Rs. 30 Lacs t o t he house owner of t he house one Mr. Malhot ra. That , t he PCI T aft er recording a figure of Rs. 20 Lacs, in it s report under Rule 9, t he very sam e PCI T has accept ed t he figure of 13.26 crore, recorded by t he A.O.. I t has recorded t hat t his blind accept ance by t he very sam e PCI T, reflect s non- applicat ion of m ind and renders t he approval accorded, a m echanical one. 1 8 . I n Paragraph 15, t he Tribunal, placing reliance on t he ruling in t he case of Ce n t r a l I n d i a El e ct r i c Su p p l y Co . Lt d . v s. I n co m e Ta x Of f i ce r a n d a n o t h e r , ( I TA N o . 1 7 / 1 9 9 9 disposed of on 28.01.2011) , has proceeded t o hold t he approval grant ed is a m echanical act and wit hout applicat ion 8 of m ind. I t has furt her relied on t he ruling of t he Bom bay High Court in Ge r m a n Re m e d i e s Lt d . v s. D e p u t y Co m m i ssi o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x ( W r i t Pe t i t i o n N o . 6 1 9 a n d 6 2 1 o f 2 0 2 1 , decided on 28.10.2025) , t he j udgm ent of t he High Court in t he case of Un i t e d El e ct r i ca l Co m p a n y ( P) Lt d . v s. Co m m i ssi o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x a n d o t h e r s ( Ci v i l W r i t Pe t i t i o n N o . 5 7 4 6 a n d CM N o . 9 7 6 9 / 2 0 0 2 , decided on 10.10.2002) and t he order of t he Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in t he case of Co m m i ssi o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x v s. S. Go y a n k a Li m e a n d Ch e m i ca l s Lt d . ( I TA N o . 8 2 t o 8 4 & 8 7 t o 8 9 o f 2 0 1 2 , decided on 14.10.2014) and finally, on t he ruling of t he Hon’ble Apex Court in Ch h u g a m a l Ra j p a l v s. S.P. Ch a l i h a & o t h e r s report ed in ( 1 9 7 1 ) 7 9 I TR 0 6 0 3 . The relevant paragraphs have been ext ract ed by t he Tribunal in support of it s findings. 1 9 . I n Paragraph- 16, t he Tribunal has recorded t hat t here is no independent applicat ion of m ind by t he approving aut horit y and t he very sam e grounds and reasons, which were earlier rej ect ed on t wo occasions and not approved on t wo occasions, have been accorded approval in t he fift h round. The Tribunal, in Paragraph- 17, has also discussed t he allegat ions of nexus and t he reasons for t he alleged illegal grat ificat ion, i.e. t he award of cont ract s t o Am it Sharm a. The Tribunal has also m ade out a chart in t abular form consist ing 9 t hree colum ns under t he heads ‘Fact s m ent ioned reasons’, ‘Correct fact s’ and ‘Rem ark’. The t abular chart is reproduced hereunder: - ent ries Fa ct s m e n t i o n e d i n r e a so n s The AO obser v ed t hat cheque am ount s pert aining t o fat her of t he assessee are act ually t he ent ries of t he assessee and hence Mr V.K. Raj an version t hese t hat are friendly loans is not corr ect . Page t he num ber 64 of sanct ions i.e. reasons r ecor ded. The t he alleged assessee cont ract s awar ded t o Am it Sharm a- See Num ber- 64 Para- 6 t he reasons r ecor ded A.O. t hat I ncom e escaped in t he t he hands of assessee Rs. 13,16,50,000/ - Co r r e ct f a ct s Re m a r k s t he I n t he assessm ent of r ev enue fat her accept ed t he t ransact ions paym ent of loan and repay m ent of as corr ect . Order Assessm ent fat her Page No- 11- 12 Ther efore t he belief t hat ent ries ar e act ually relat ed t o assessee is not corr ect . t he AO Am it Sharm a was cont ract or of UPRNN cont ract s get t ing from UPRNN a UP Govt undert aking. Page Num ber- 5 of Com m ission t he order Para 4.1. Fact s subm it t ed by t he w ho CI T sam e grant ed sanct ion t o t he AO for 148 The PCI T while filing report of r ule before t he Com m ission has alleged t hat t ot al Rs. 50 lakhs have been Raj esh Kum ar t o Assessee was not an officer of UPRNN See subm issions of before t he PCI T Com m ission ( Page No.7 para 4.5) 2 0 . I n Paragraph 18, t he Tribunal has ext ract ed t he reply by t he Depart m ent , wherein t hey have accept ed t he 10 ret urns by t he said V.K. Raj an ( fat her of t he assessee) , as t he incom e of t he fat her only. I n Paragraph 19, t he Tribunal has recorded t hat t hough assessm ent s in respect of t he fat her were re- opened under Sect ion 148 of t he Act , but no addit ions were m ade. I t concludes in Paragraph 19 t hat t here was no t angible m at erial and t he A.O. proceeded on an ent irely wrong belief. I n Paragraph 20, t he Tribunal has appreciat ed t he provisions of Sect ion 147 of t he Act of 1961 in t he light of t he law laid down by t he Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of I TO v s. La k h m a n i M e w a l D a s report ed in [ 1 9 7 6 ] 1 0 3 I TR 4 3 7 ( SC) t o hold t hat t he “ reason t o believe” cannot be equat ed wit h “ reason t o suspect ” . Elaborat ing furt her, t he Tribunal has relied on t he findings of t he Hon’ble Apex Court t hat vague feeling or suspicion of t he Assessing Officer t owards possible escapem ent would not be a ground t o perm it reopening of com plet ed assessm ent in defiance of st at ut ory requirem ent s. 2 1 . I n Paragraph- 21, t he Tribunal relied on t he case of Ga n g a Pr a sa d M a h e sh w a r i v s. CI T report ed in ( 1 9 8 3 ) 1 3 9 I TR 1 0 4 3 ( A l l ) and followed t he Hon’ble Apex Court ’s exposit ion of law regarding “ reason t o believe” , wherein t he Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased t o hold t hat before t he Officer accept s a fact t o exist , t here m ust be j ust ificat ion for it and on t he basis of t he above discussion, concluded in Paragraph- 22 11 t hat t he approval was a m echanical one and hence, t he assum pt ion of j urisdict ion by t he AO was bad in law. 2 2 . Learned counsel for t he Revenue/ Appellant would vociferously cont end t hat t he Tribunal failed t o appreciat e t he t ransact ions denot ing t he flow of funds ( in cash, bullion, diam ond and cheques) t owards t he assessee; t hat t hey were relat able t o him on t he basis of t wo direct evidences; t hat t he papers were not dum b papers and were live incrim inat ing papers as t he sam e recorded ent ries of paym ent s t o t he fat her of t he assessee, i.e. Sri V.K. Raj an and he would place reliance on t he ruling of t he Jharkhand High Court in t he case of M a h a b i r Pr a sa d Ru n g t a v s. CI T( A ) report ed in ( 2 0 1 4 ) 2 6 6 CTR 1 7 5 t o cont end t hat addit ions could be m ade on t he basis of loose papers if t he sit uat ion so warrant ed. Secondly, is cont ended t hat at t ribut ing incom e on t he basis of circum st ant ial evidence and hum an probabilit ies were also accept ed by t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court , in t he case of Su m a t i D a y a l v s. CI T report ed in ( 1 9 9 5 ) 2 1 4 I TR 8 0 1 and CI T v s. D u r g a Pr a sa d M o r e report ed in ( 1 9 7 1 ) 8 2 I TR 5 4 0 ( SC) . That t he AO aft er exploring t he nexus or proxim al working connect ion of t he assessee wit h Shri Am it Sharm a and such exam inat ion being indicat ive of a st rong connect ion wit h Shri Sharm a, hence, t he paym ent as writ t en in Pages LP 186 & 187 were at t ribut ed t o t he assessee, but it is fairly 12 adm it t ed t hat several of t he alleged incrim inat ing ent ries pert ain t o t hird part y, including t he fat her of t he assessee; t hat aft er excluding such ent ries, t he escaped assessm ent is cryst allized at Rs. 11,40,50,000/ - for t he Assessm ent Year 2015- 16; t hat t he Appeal t o t he First Appellat e Aut horit y- CI T ( Appeals) cam e t o be right ly rej ect ed. I t is cont ended t hat t he Second Appellat e Aut horit y, i.e. t he Tribunal erred in allowing t he Appeal wit hout dwelling upon t he m erit s of t he case and erred in m erely grant ing relief on t he basis of legal grounds raised; Elaborat ing furt her he would cont end t hat t he Tribunal ought t o have appreciat ed t he m at erial fact s and; t hat t he Tribunal erred in relying on t he ruling rendered by t he Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of La k h m a n i M e w a l D a s ( supra) and anot her ruling rendered by t he Allahabad High Court in t he case of Ga n g a Pr a sa d M a h e sh w a r i ( supra) . 2 3 . I t is vehem ent ly cont ended t hat t he t wo papers num bered as 186 & 187 of t he LP are incrim inat ing m at erials t hat were im pounded during t he search & survey operat ion on 08.09.2015 and t hat t hey form ed t he basis and t he reason t o believe for t he A.O. t o seek reopening. I t is furt her cont ended t hat t he im pounded docum ent s cont ain reference t o paym ent s by way of cash, cheque t ransact ions, gold- biscuit s and diam onds and t here is a dat e- wise narrat ion t he loose sheet s under t he Header ‘Sir Raj esh MD’ 13 dem onst rat ing proxim it y bet ween t he assessee and t he said Am it Sharm a- a sub- cont ract or of UPRNN, who was favoured and t he reasons are obvious as t he works of SI DCUL are awarded t o UPRNN and hence, t he assessee, as t he MD of SI DCUL, is capable of influencing t he decisions in t he m at t er of award of sub cont ract ( s) . Thus, even according t o t he Depart m ent , t he cont ract s are execut ed by UPRNN and t he works awarded t o UPRNN are not on account of any com pet it ive bidding but on account of a policy of t he Governm ent , whereby in repect of all civil works, t he SI DCUL is put in charge of execut ing t he sam e and by Governm ent Order, t he SI DCUL is required t o award t he cont ract t o UPRNN, which, in t urn, engages sub- cont ract ors for execut ing t he works. Despit e t his m andat ory condit ion t he revenue has presum ed t hat t he respondent had direct influence t o cont rol of sub- cont ract s by SI DCUL. 2 4 . The ot her lim b of argum ent , canvassed by t he learned counsel for t he appellant , is t hat t he sanct ion let t ers, issued by SI DCUL and addressed t o UPRNN, were found in t he prem ises of Shri Am it Sharm a. This in our firm opinion is not a prej udicial fact once it is adm it t ed t hat he is a sub- cont ract or and it would be in usual course for him t o be in possession of t he sam e. That t he im pounded papers m ent ioned paym ent s t o one Shri Sanj ay Rawat , t he t hen AGM 14 of SI DCUL; t hat t he above fact s form ed t he basis for t he A.O.’s reason t o believe. 2 5 . Learned counsel t he revenue/ appellant has placed reliance on several rulings of t he Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Court s. 2 6 . Learned counsel for t he respondent / assessee, apart from reit erat ing t he cont ent ions canvassed before t he Tribunal regarding non- applicat ion of m ind and t he approval being vit iat ed by a m echanical approach, has cont ended t hat t here is no provision for repeat ed re- present at ion of t he proposal or for review and re- approval once t he proposal st ood rej ect ed. 2 7 . Having heard t he counsels at lengt h, it is relevant t o t raverse t he provisions of Sect ions 148, 148A and 151 of t he Act , which read as under: - “ [ 1 4 8 . I ssu e o f n o t i ce w h e r e i n co m e h a s e sca p e d a sse s sm e n t .- Before m aking t he assessm ent , reassessm ent or recom put at ion under sect ion 147, and subj ect t o t he provisions of sect ion 148A, t he Assessing Officer shall serve on t he assessee a not ice, along wit h a copy of t he or der passed, if required, under clause ( d) of sect ion 148A, requiring him t o furnish wit hin such period, as m ay be specified in such not ice, a ret urn of his incom e or t he incom e of any ot her person in respect of which he is assessable under t his Act during t he previous year corresponding t o t he relevant assessm ent year, in t he prescribed form and verified fort h such ot her part iculars as m ay be prescribed; and t he provisions of t his Act shall, so far as m ay be, apply accordingly as if such ret urn were a ret urn required t o be furnished under sect ion 139: t he prescribed m anner and set t ing Provided t hat no not ice under t his sect ion shall be issued unless t here is inform at ion wit h t he Assessing Officer which suggest s t hat t he incom e chargeable t o t ax has escaped assessm ent in t he case of t he assessee for t he relevant 15 assessm ent year and t he Assessing Officer has obt ained prior approval of t he specified aut horit y t o issue such not ice: [ Provided furt her t hat no such approval shall be required where t he Assessing Officer, wit h t he prior approval of t he specified aut horit y, has passed an order under clause ( d) of sect ion 148A t o t he effect t hat it is a fit case t o issue a not ice under t his sect ion.] Explanat ion 1.—For t he purposes of t his sect ion and sect ion t he Assessing Officer which 148A, suggest s t hat t he incom e chargeable t o t ax has escaped assessm ent m eans,— inform at ion wit h t he t o received inform at ion inform at ion m ade available t he t he schem e not ified ( i) any inform at ion [ * * * ] in t he case of t he assessee for t he relevant assessm ent year in accordance wit h t he risk m anagem ent st rat egy form ulat ed by t he Board from t im e t o t im e; [ ( ii) any audit obj ect ion t o t he effect t hat t he assessm ent in t he case of t he assessee for t he relevant assessm ent year has not been m ade in accordance wit h t he provisions of t his Act ; or ( iii) agreem ent referred t o in sect ion 90 or sect ion 90A of t he Act ; or ( iv) any Assessing Officer under under sect ion 135A; or ( v) any inform at ion w hich requires act ion in consequence of t he order of a Tribunal or a Court .] Explanat ion 2.—For t he purposes of t his sect ion, where,— ( i) a search is init iat ed under sect ion 132 or books of account , ot her docum ent s or any asset s are requisit ioned under sect ion 132A, on or aft er t he 1st day of April, 2021, in t he case of t he assessee; or ( ii) a survey is conduct ed under sect ion 133A, ot her t han under sub- sect ion ( 2A) [ * * * ] of t hat sect ion, on or aft er t he 1st day of April, 2021, in t he case of t he assessee; or ( iii) t he Assessing Officer is sat isfied, wit h t he prior approval of t he Principal Com m issioner or bullion, t hat Com m issioner, j ewellery or ot her valuable art icle or t hing, seized or requisit ioned under sect ion 132 or sect ion 132A in case of any ot her person on or aft er t he 1st day of April, 2021, belongs t o t he assessee; or ( iv) t he Assessing Officer is sat isfied, wit h t he prior approval of Principal Com m issioner or Com m issioner, t hat any books of account or docum ent s, requisit ioned under sect ion 132 or sect ion 132A in case of any ot her any m oney, seized or 16 person on or aft er t he 1st day of April, 2021, pert ains or pert ain inform at ion cont ained t herein, r elat e t o, t he assessee, t o, or any t o t he t hat incom e chargeable t he Assessing Officer shall be deem ed t o have inform at ion which suggest s t ax has escaped assessm ent in t he case of t he assessee [ where] t he search is init iat ed or books of account , ot her docum ent s or any asset s are requisit ioned or survey is conduct ed in t he case of t he assessee or m oney, bullion, j ewellery or ot her valuable art icle or t hing or books of account or docum ent s are seized or requisit ioned in case of any ot her person. Explanat ion 3.—For t he purposes of t his sect ion, specified aut horit y m eans t he specified aut horit y referred t o in sect ion 151.] i n q u i r y , p r o v i d i n g [ Se ct i o n 1 4 8 A . Co n d u ct i n g o p p o r t u n i t y b e f o r e i ssu e o f n o t i ce u n d e r se ct i o n 1 4 8 .- The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any not ice under sect ion 148, — ( a ) conduct any enquiry , if r equir ed, wit h t he prior approval of specified aut horit y, wit h r espect t o t he inform at ion which suggest s t hat t he incom e chargeable t o t ax has escaped assessm ent ; t o t he ( b ) provide an opport unit y of being heard assessee, by serv ing upon him a not ice t o show- cause wit hin such t im e, as m ay be specified in t he not ice, being not less t han sev en days and but not ex ceeding t hirt y days from t he dat e on which such not ice is issued, or such t im e, as m ay be ext ended by him on t he basis of an applicat ion in t his behalf, as t o why a not ice u/ s 148 should not be issued on t he basis of inform at ion t ax has which suggest s t hat escaped assessm ent relevant assessm ent y ear and result s of enquiry conduct ed, if any, as per clause ( a) ; incom e char geable in his case t o t he ( c) consider t he r eply of assessee furnished, if any, in response t o t he show- cause not ice referred t o in clause ( b) ; ( d ) decide, on t he basis of m at erial available on r ecord including r eply of t he assessee, whet her or not it is a fit case t o issue a not ice under sect ion 148, by passing an order , wit h t he prior approval of specified aut horit y, wit hin one m ont h from t he end of t he m ont h in which t he r eply r efer red t o in clause ( c) is received by him , or wher e no such r eply is furnished, wit hin one m ont h from t he end of t he m ont h in which t im e or ext ended t im e allowed t o furnish a reply as per clause ( b) expir es – 17 Pr o v i d e d t hat t he provisions of t his sect ion shall not apply in a case where,— ( a ) a search is init iat ed under sect ion 132 or books of account , requisit ioned under sect ion 132A in t he case of t he assessee on or aft er t he 1st day of April, 2021; or docum ent s asset s ot her ( b ) t he Assessing Officer is sat isfied, wit h t he prior approval of t he Principal Com m issioner or Com m issioner t hat any m oney , bullion, j eweller y or ot her valuable art icle or t hing, seized in a search under sect ion 132 or requisit ioned u/ s 132A, in t he case of any ot her per son on or aft er t he 1st day of April, 2021, belongs t o t he assessee; or ( c) t he Assessing Officer is sat isfied, wit h t he prior approval of t he Principal Com m issioner or Com m issioner t hat any books of account or docum ent s, seized in a sear ch u/ s 132 or requisit ioned under sect ion 132A, in case of any ot her per son on or aft er t he 1st day of April, 2021, pert ains or pert ain infor m at ion cont ained t her ein, relat e t o, t he assessee; or t o, or any ( d ) t he Assessing Officer has r eceived any inform at ion t o incom e char geable t o t ax escaping assessm ent for any assessm ent year in t he case of t he assessee. t he schem e not ified u/ s 135A pert aining Explanat ion.—For t he pur poses of t his sect ion, specified aut horit y m eans t he specified aut horit y referr ed t o in sect ion 151. 1 5 1 . Sa n ct i o n f o r i ssu e o f n o t i ce .- Specified aut horit y for t he purposes of sect ion 148 and sect ion 148A shall be,— ( i) Principal Com m issioner or Pr incipal Direct or or Com m issioner or Direct or, if t hr ee years or less t han t hree years have elapsed from t he end of t he relevant assessm ent year; ( ii) Principal Chief Com m issioner or Principal Dir ect or is no Principal Chief General or w here Com m issioner or Principal Direct or General, Chief Com m issioner or Direct or General, if m ore t han t hr ee t he relev ant years have elapsed assessm ent year.] t he end of t here 2 8 . The ot her lim b of argum ent t hat is canvassed and on account of which, t he counsel for t he appellant would seek 18 rem and is t he non- com pliance wit h Sect ion 29 of t he Act . I t is cont ended t hat addit ional m at erial could not have been brought on record before t he Tribunal wit hout invoking t he provisions of Sect ion 29 of t he Act . Per cont ra it was cont ended by t he learned counsel for t he respondent t hat “ t he records” are t he records t hat have been furnished by t he Depart m ent t o t he respondent and t he Tribunal records do not disclose any obj ect ion having been raised for t he product ion and m arking of t he docum ent . Having acquiesced t o t he product ion of t he docum ent , m ore pert inent ly t he docum ent s originat ing from and issued by t he Depart m ent and issued t o t he respondent , t he said obj ect ion requires t o be negat ived and t he learned counsel for t he revenue has fairly conceded t he sam e. 2 9 . From t he fact s and circum st ances narrat ed above, it is apparent t hat t he proposed quest ions of law fram ed by t he appellant / Revenue are m ore in t he nat ure of quest ions of fact and adj udicat ion of t he sam e would call for adj udicat ion of fact s, which is im perm issible. 3 0 . The provisions of Sect ion 260A of t he Act of 1961 clearly m andat e t hat what is required t o be gone int o at t he t im e of adj udicat ing t he Appeal is a subst ant ial quest ion of law. 19 3 1 . The only quest ion t hat arises for considerat ion is, whet her t he m ult iple present at ions / repeat ed re- present at ion, of t he proposal for init iat ion of proceedings u/ s 148 t o t he Com pet ent Aut horit y u/ s 151, is perm issible under t he Act of 1961? 3 2 . Learned counsel for t he appellant / revenue would cont end t hat neit her Sect ion 148, nor Sect ion 151 of t he Act of 1961 bars m ult iple present at ions or re- present at ion of t he proposal; t hat in t he absence of a bar, it is open for t he A.O. t o seek approval any num ber of t im es. I n t his regard, it is pert inent t o not e t hat t his query was posed t o t he learned counsel for t he appellant and along wit h t he said query, t he appellant was also asked t o clarify as t o whet her any m echanism or rem edy is available under t he schem e of t he Act t o t he A.O. in t he event of refusal of approval by t he Com pet ent Aut horit y. 3 3 . As regards t he second query, t he learned A.O. has fairly conceded t hat t here is no rem edy available t o t he A.O. in t he event of t he Com pet ent Aut horit y refusing approval. 3 4 . The very fact t hat t he scope and am bit of t he Act of 1961 does not provide for any rem edy / rem edies t o t he A.O. against t he order of approval of t he Com pet ent Aut horit y under Sect ion 151 of t he Act of 1961 would go t o show t hat t he Parliam ent int ended t o give a finalit y t o t he proceeding 20 wit h t he order of t he Com pet ent Aut horit y under Sect ion 151 of t he Act of 1961. 3 5 . De- hors t he above t his Court has proceeded t o analyze t he Act t o det erm ine whet her t he Parliam ent int ended t o give finalit y t o t he proceedings at t he hands of t he Com pet ent Aut horit y it self? Chapt er- XX of t he Act of 1961 provides for rem edies by way of Appeals and Revisions. Sect ion 246 of t he Act of 1961 provides for rem edy of Appeal t o assessee before t he Joint Com m issioner ( Appeals) . Provisions of Sect ion 246 refer t o t he orders under Sect ions 143, 144, 147, 200A, 201, 206C, 206CB, an order im posing penalt y under Chapt er XXI , an order under Sect ion 154 or Sect ion 155. Nowhere t he provision refers t o t he order/ sanct ion/ approval of t he Com pet ent Aut horit y under Sect ion 151 of t he Act of 1961. 3 6 . A perusal of Sect ion 246A, which provides Appeal before t he Com m issioner ( Appeals) , refers t o Sect ions 115VP, 200A, 206CB, 143, 144, 144BA, 115WE, 115WF, 115WG, 147, 150, 153A, 92CD, 154, 155, 163, 170, 171, 185, 186, 201 et c., but does not provide for an Appeal against t he order under Sect ion 151 of t he Act of 1961. 3 7 . Sect ion 248 of t he Act of 1961 refers t o Sect ion

195. Sect ion 252 of t he Act of 1961 deals wit h est ablishm ent 21 of Appellat e Tribunal. Sect ion 253 deals wit h Appeals t o t he Appellat e Tribunal. 3 8 . A bare perusal of t he provisions of Sect ion 253, m ore part icularly sub- sect ion ( 1) would obviat e any furt her digression, as it does not provide for any Appeal t o t he proceedings by t he Com pet ent Aut horit y under Sect ion 151 of t he Act of 1961. 3 9 . Sect ion 260A of t he Act of 1961 provides Appeals t o High Court and a bare reading of sub- sect ions ( 1) & ( 2) would dem onst rat e t hat t he Appeals t o t he High Court are t o arise out of t he orders of t he Appellat e Tribunal. The Principal Chief Com m issioner or Chief Com m issioner or t he Principal Com m issioner or Com m issioner or an assessee aggrieved by any order passed by t he Appellat e Tribunal, are ent it led t o invoke t he appellat e j urisdict ion of t he High Court . I t is apparent and as right ly conceded by t he appellant ’s counsel, t here is no rem edy available against t he orders / proceedings of t he Com pet ent Aut horit y under Sect ion 151 of t he Act of 1961. Thus, it can be safely presum ed t hat t he order under Sect ion 151 of t he Act of 1961 is not an appealable order. 4 0 . We next m ove on t o exam ine t he provisions of Sect ion 263 of t he Act of 1961, which provides for revision of orders prej udicial t o t he revenue. A reading of sub- sect ion ( 1) 22 and various clauses would furt her clarify and but t ress t he view of t his Court t hat t he proceedings / t he orders passed by t he Com pet ent Aut horit y under Sect ion 151 of t he Act of 1961 are not revisable under Sect ion 263 of t he Act of 1961 but only such of t hose orders passed by officers/ aut horit ies, subordinat e t o t he Com pet ent Aut horit y u/ s 151. 4 1 . Next , we exam ine t he am bit of Sect ion 264 of t he Act of 1961, which deals wit h revision of ot her orders. I t enables t he Principal Chief Com m issioner or Chief Com m issioner or Principal Com m issioner or Com m issioner, eit her on t heir own m ot ion or on an applicat ion by t he assessee revision, t o call t he records of any proceedings under t his Act , in which such order has been passed and t o m ake such inquiry or cause any such inquiry t o be m ade and subj ect t o t he provisions of t his Act t hey m ay pass such orders t hereon not being an order prej udicial t o t he assessee as he t hinks fit . 4 2 . The cat ch t he phrase “ an aut horit y subordinat e t o him ” . Apparent ly, t he Com pet ent Aut horit y u/ s 151 is Principal Com m issioner, or Principal Direct or, or Com m issioner or Direct or, or Principal Chief Com m issioner or Principal Direct or General or Chief Com m issioner or Direct or General under Sect ion 151 of t he Act of 1961. 23 4 3 . The proceedings seeking init iat ion under Sect ion 148 or 148A are not orders, as sought t o be cont ended by t he appellant ’s counsel. Thus, a close exam inat ion of Chapt er- XX of t he Act of 1961 would reveal and clarify t hat t he order of t he Com pet ent Aut horit y grant ing sanct ion or approval or refusing t o grant sanct ion or approval u/ s 151 of t he Act of 1961 is neit her a revisable order, nor an appealable order. The nom enclat ure of Sect ion 151, or t he heading of Sect ion 151 reads as “ sanct ion for issue of not ice” , im plying t hereby t he m andat ory nat ure of t he said provision. I f it was t he opinion of t he law - m akers t hat t he proposal is capable of being re- present ed or re- visit ed m ult iple t im es and if it was t he opinion of t he law- m akers t hat it is m erely and a sheer adm inist rat ive act ion, t he law- m akers would have cert ainly provided for t he sam e. 4 4 . The law of int erpret at ion insofar as t axing st at ut es are concerned is one of st rict int erpret at ion. I n t hat view, t he cont ent ion t hat in t he absence of a bar, t he proposal can be present ed and re- present ed or re- visit ed any num ber of t im es is wit hout subst ance. 4 5 . I t is an undeniable fact t hat t he proceedings result init iat ion of adj udicat ory proceedings, which could culm inat e in adverse civil consequences t o t he assessee. I t is also not in doubt t hat t he proceedings / orders under Sect ion 24 151 of t he Act of 1961 are subj ect t o j udicial review, as t hey are orders, which are capable of result ing in adverse civil and penal consequences on t he assessee. 4 6 . Learned counsel t he appellant would fairly concede t hat t he proceedings under Sect ions 147 t o 151 are subj ect t o j udicial review. 4 7 . I n t hat view and in view of t he fact t hat it is no m ore res int egra t hat t he set t led law in t his regard being reflect ion of applicat ion of m ind, t his Court can safely conclude t hat t he law- m akers and t he Parliam ent did not deem it necessary t o vest a power of review t he Com pet ent Aut horit y. The Act being a self cont ained Code, be it wit h regard t o Appeals and Revisions, t he om ission t o provide a rem edy against t he sam e but t resses t he opinion of t his Court t hat t he Parliam ent int ended t o give a finalit y at t he hands of t he Com pet ent Aut horit y. 4 8 . A useful reference could be m ade t o t he law laid down by t he Hon’ble Apex Court wit h regard t o t he finalit y of t he proceedings. 4 9 . The Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of Ra sh i d K h a n Pa t h a n v s. Vi j a y K u r l e a n d o t h e r s report ed i n ( 2 0 2 1 ) 1 2 SCC 6 4 has held as under: “ 10. I n a count ry governed by t he rule of law, finalit y of t he j udgm ent at t ached t o t he finalit y of t he j udgm ent . Perm it t ing t he part ies im perat ive and great sanct it y is absolut ely 25 t o reopen t he concluded j udgm ent s of t his Court by filing repeat ed int erlocut ory applicat ions is clearly an abuse of t he process of law and would have far- reaching adverse im pact on t he adm inist rat ion of j ust ice [ I ndian Council for Enviro- Legal Act ion v. Union of I ndia, ( 2011) 8 SCC 161 : ( 2011) 4 SCC ( Civ) 87] . 11. Repeat ed filing of applicat ions w hich are not m aint ainable, am ount s t o abuse of process of law. O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in A d v o ca t e Ge n e r a l v . M .P. K h a i r I n d u st r i e s [ A d v o ca t e Ge n e r a l v . M .P. K h a i r I n d u st r i e s, ( 1 9 8 0 ) 3 SCC 3 1 1 : 1980 SCC ( Cri) 688] was of t he opinion t hat abuse of process of court s am ount s t o crim inal cont em pt . I n t he said case, t he respondent was accused of filing repeat ed applicat ions and obst ruct ing t he adm inist rat ion of j ust ice which int erfered wit h t he due course of j udicial proceedings. Pr a k a sh 13. I n D n y a n d e o K h a d e k a r [ D n y a n d e o Sa b a j i N a i k v . Pr a d n y a Pr a k a sh K h a d e k a r , ( 2 0 1 7 ) 5 SCC 4 9 6 : ( 2017) 3 SCC ( Civ) 189] , D.Y. Chandrachud, J., speaking for a t hree- Judge Bench held t hat court s are obligat ed t o act firm ly in dealing wit h abuse of process, and im pose exem plary cost s when necessary. Chandrachud, J. held : ( SCC pp. 504- 05, paras 13- 14) N a i k v . Pr a d n y a Sa b a j i j udicial “ 13. This Court m ust view wit h disfavour any at t em pt by a lit igant t o abuse t he process. The sanct it y of t he j udicial process will be seriously eroded if such at t em pt s are not dealt wit h firm ly. A lit igant who t akes libert ies wit h t he t rut h or wit h t he pr ocedures of t he Court should be left in no doubt about t he consequences t o follow. Ot hers should not vent ure along t he sam e pat h in t he hope or on a leniency. Exem plary m isplaced expect at ion of cost s are inevit able, and even necessary, in order t o ensure t hat in lit igat ion, as in t he law which is pract ised in our count ry, t her e is no prem ium on t he t rut h. 14. Court s across t he legal syst em —t his Court not being an except ion—are choked wit h lit igat ion. Frivolous and groundless filings const it ut e a serious m enace t o t he adm inist rat ion of j ust ice. They consum e t im e and clog t he infrast ruct ure. Product ive resources which should be deployed in t he handling of genuine causes are dissipat ed in at t ending t o cases filed only t o benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing wort hless causes. in delay. No Unfort unat ely, as t he t he process of dispensing unscrupulous t o t he det rim ent of t he legit im at e. The present case is an illust rat ion of how a sim ple issue has occupied t he t im e of t he court s and of how successive applicat ions have been filed t o prolong t he inevit able. The person in whose favour t he balance of j ust ice lies has in t he process been left in t he lurch by repeat ed at t em pt s t o revive a st ale issue. This t endency can be curbed only if court s across t he syst em adopt an inst it ut ional approach which penalises such behaviour. Liberal access t o j ust ice does not m ean access t o chaos and indiscipline. A st rong t he present case exem plifies, is m isused by lit igant can have a vest ed int erest j ust ice 26 t o be disrupt ed by m essage m ust be conveyed t hat court s of j ust ice will not be allowed lit igat ive st rat egies designed t o profit from t he delays of t he law . Unless rem edial act ion is t aken by all court s here and now our societ y will breed a legal cult ure based on evasion inst ead of abidance. I t is t he dut y of every court t o firm ly deal wit h such sit uat ions. The im posit ion of exem plary cost s is a necessary inst rum ent which has t o be deployed t o weed out , as well as t o pr event t he filing of fr ivolous cases. I t is only t hen t hat t he court s can set apart t im e t o resolve genuine causes and answer t he concerns of t hose who are in need of j ust ice. I m posit ion of real t im e cost s is also necessary t o ensure t hat access t o court s is available t o cit izens wit h genuine grievances. Ot herwise, t he doors would be shut t o legit im at e causes sim ply by t he weight of undeserving cases which flood t he syst em . Such a sit uat ion cannot be allowed t o com e t o pass. Hence it is not m erely a m at t er of discret ion but a dut y and obligat ion cast upon all court s t o ensure t hat t he legal syst em is not exploit ed by t hose who use t he form s of t he law t o defeat or delay j ust ice. We com m end all court s t o deal wit h frivolous filings in t he sam e m anner.” 5 0 . The Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of Su p e r t e ch Lt d . v . Em e r a l d Co u r t Ow n e r Re si d e n t W e l f a r e A sso ci a t i o n a n d Ot h e r s, report ed in ( 2 0 2 3 ) 1 0 SCC 8 1 7 has held as under: “ 11. More recent ly, anot her t wo- Judge Bench in Rashid Khan Pat han, I n re [ Rashid Khan Pat han, I n re, ( 2021) 12 SCC 64 : ( 2023) 1 SCC ( Cri) 438] held as follows : ( SCC p. 68, para 10) “ 10. I n a count ry governed by t he rule of law, finalit y of t he j udgm ent is absolut ely im perat ive and great sanct it y is at t ached t o t he finalit y of t he j udgm ent . Perm it t ing t he part ies t o reopen t he concluded j udgm ent s of t his Court by filing repeat ed int erlocut ory applicat ions is clearly an abuse of t he process of law and would have far- reaching adverse im pact on t he adm inist rat ion of j ust ice.”

13. The hallm ark of a j udicial pronouncem ent is it s st abilit y and finalit y. Judicial verdict s are not like sand dunes which are subj ect t o t he vagaries of wind and weat her [ See, Meghm ala v. G. Narasim ha Reddy, ( 2010) 8 SCC 383 : ( 2010) 3 SCC ( Civ) 368 : ( 2010) 3 SCC ( Cri) 878] . A 27 dist urbing t rend has em erged t his Court of repeat ed applicat ions, st yled as m iscellaneous applicat ions, being filed aft er a final j udgm ent has been pronounced. Such a pract ice has no legal foundat ion and m ust be firm ly discouraged. I t reduces lit igat ion t o a gam bit . Miscellaneous applicat ions are becom ing a preferred course t o t hose wit h resources t o pursue st rat egies t o avoid com pliance wit h j udicial decisions. A j udicial pronouncem ent cannot be subj ect t o m odificat ion once t he j udgm ent has been pronounced, by filing a m iscellaneous applicat ion. Filing of a m iscellaneous applicat ion seeking m odificat ion/ clar ificat ion of a j udgm ent is not envisaged in law. Furt her, it is a set t led legal principle t hat one cannot do indirect ly what one cannot do direct ly ( “ Quando aliquid prohibet ur ex direct o, prohibet ur et per obliquum ” ) .

14. Furt her, t here is anot her legal principle which is applicable in t he present case. I t is t hat where a power is given t o do a cert ain t hing in a cert ain way, t he t hing m ust be done in t hat way or not at all and t hat ot her m et hods of perform ance are necessarily forbidden [ Taylor v. Taylor, ( 1875) LR 1 Ch D 426] . Hence, when a st at ut e requires a part icular t hing t o be done in a part icular m anner, it m ust be done in t hat m anner or not at all and ot her m et hods of perform ance are necessarily forbidden [ Nazir Ahm ad v. King Em peror, 1936 SCC OnLine PC 41 : ( 1935- 36) 63 I A 372] . This Court t oo, has adopt ed t his m axim [ Parbhani Transport Coop. Societ y Lt d. v. RTA, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 46 : AI R 1960 SC 801] . This rule provides t hat an expressly laid down m ode of doing som et hing necessarily im plies a prohibit ion on doing it in any ot her way.” 5 1 . The fact t hat t he proposals are t o be preceded by reason t o believe and t he approval/ sanct ion ought t o be aft er applicat ion of m ind would clearly dem onst rat e t hat t he exercise of powers under Sect ions 147 t o 151 of t he Act of 28 1961, t hough subj ect ive in nat ure, are t o be relat able t o an obj ect ive assessm ent of t he m at erial. 5 2 . I t is no m ore res int egra t hat power of review is not an inherent power, but one t hat is t o be st at ut orily conferred by law. The right t o seek review is neit her a nat ural, nor a fundam ent al right . I f t he cont ent ion of t he appellant ’s counsel is accept ed it could lead t o a far great er m ischief and in t he hands of unscrupulous officers becom e a t ool t o keep alive an issue for infinit y. Every disgrunt led A.O. or every successor A.O., who has a different opinion, would t end t o re- open t he files and seek init iat ion of proceedings result ing in endless lit igat ion. I n t his regard, we place reliance on t he ruling of t he Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of A ssi st a n t Co m m i ssi o n e r , I n co m e Ta x , Ra j k o t Vs. Sa u r a sh t r a K u t ch St o ck Ex ch a n g e Lt d ( Ci v i l A p p e a l N o . 1 1 7 1 o f 2 0 0 4 , disposed of vide j udgm ent dat ed 15.09.2008) , wherein t he Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased t o hold as under: - “ 10. The lear ned counsel for t he Rev enue subm it t ed t hat t he Tribunal com m it t ed an error of law and of j urisdict ion in ex ercising power under sub- sect ion ( 2) of Sect ion 254 of t he Act and in r ecalling it s earlier or der passed in appeal. I t was subm it t ed t hat t he Tribunal is a st at ut ory aut horit y ( t hough not an ‘incom e t ax aut horit y’ under Sect ion 116) and is ex er cising pow er conferr ed by t he Act . I t has no ‘plenary’ powers. I t has no power t o review it s ow n decisions. Power under Sect ion 254( 2) can be exer cised in case of any ‘m ist ake appar ent fr om t he r ecor d’. Accor ding t o t he counsel, ev en if t he order passed by t he Tribunal was incorr ect or wrong in law , it would not fall wit hin t he connot at ion ‘m ist ake appar ent on recor d’. I f t he assessee was aggrieved by t he said 29 order , it could have challenged t he order by t aking appropriat e proceedings know n t o law. Miscellaneous Applicat ion under Sect ion 254( 2) of t he Act was not m aint ainable. Again, t he order passed under Sect ion 254 by t he Tribunal is final under sub- sect ion ( 4) of t he said sect ion. By invoking t he j urisdict ion under sub- sect ion ( 2) of t he said sect ion, t he st at ut ory ‘finalit y’ cannot be dest royed or t he provision cannot be m ade t herefore, could not hav e nugat ory. The Tribunal, allowed t he applicat ion and r ecalled it s earlier or der as r ecor d. The t her e was no error apparent on or der . Revenue, Unfort unat ely, howev er, t he High Court com m it t ed t he sam e error and dism issed t he w rit pet it ion. The order passed by t he High Court also suffers from sim ilar infirm it y. Bot h t he orders, t herefore, ar e r equired t o be quashed and set aside. challenged t her efore, t he t he

17. Having hear d learned counsel for t he part ies, t wo quest ions hav e been raised by t he part ies befor e us. First ly, w het her t he I ncom e Tax Appellat e Tribunal, Guj arat was right in exer cising pow er under sub- sect ion ( 2) of Sect ion 254 of t he Act on t he ground t hat t here was a ‘m ist ake apparent from t he r ecord’ com m it t ed by t he Tribunal w hile deciding t he appeal and w het her it could hav e r ecalled t he earlier order on t hat ground. Secondly, w het her on m erit s, t he assessee is ent it led t o exem pt ion as claim ed.

21. Plain reading of sub- sect ion ( 1) of Sect ion 254 quot ed her einabove m akes it m ore t han clear t hat t he Tribunal will pass an order aft er affording opport unit y of hearing t o bot h t he part ies t o appeal. Sub- sect ion ( 4) expr essly declares t hat save as ot her wise provided in t he Sect ion 256 Appellat e Tribunal on appeal shall be final” . Sub- sect ion ( 2) enact s t hat t he Tribunal m ay at any t im e wit hin four years from t he dat e of t he order rect ify any m ist ake appar ent from t he recor d suo m ot u. The Tribunal shall rect ify such m ist ake if it is brought t o not ice of t he Tribunal by t he assessee or t he Assessing Officer. “ order s passed by ( Refer ence) ,

22. Sub- sect ion ( 2) t hus cover s t w o dist inct sit uat ions; ( i) I t enables t he Tribunal at any t im e wit hin four y ears from t he dat e of t he order t o am end any or der passed under sub- sect ion ( 1) wit h a view t o rect ify any m ist ake appar ent t he t he record; and ( ii) Tribunal t o m ake such am endm ent if t he m ist ake is brought t o it s not ice by t he assessee or t he Assessing Officer . I t requir es 30

24. There is, how ever , no disput e by and bet ween t he part ies t hat if t here is a ‘m ist ake apparent from t he recor d’ and t he assessee brings it t o t he not ice of t he Tribunal, it m ust exer cise pow er under sub- sect ion ( 2) of Sect ion 254 of t he Act . Whereas t he learned counsel for t he Rev enue subm it t ed t hat in t he guise of exer cise of power under sub- sect ion ( 2) of Sect ion 254 of t he Act , r eally t he Tribunal has exercised pow er of ‘r eview’ not conferred on it by t he Act , t he counsel for t he assessee urged t hat t he pow er ex er cised by t he Tribunal was of rect ificat ion of ‘m ist ake apparent from t he record’ which was st rict ly wit hin t he four corners of t he said provision and no except ion can be t aken against such act ion. 25. The lear ned counsel for t he Rev enue cont ended t hat t he norm al principle of law is t hat once a j udgm ent is pronounced or order is m ade, a Court , Tribunal or Adj udicat ing Aut horit y becom es funct us officio [ ceases t o have cont rol over t he m at t er] . Such j udgm ent or order is ‘final’ and cannot be alt er ed, changed, varied or m odified. I ncom e Tax Tribunal is a Tribunal const it ut ed under t he Act . I t is not a ‘Court ’ having plenary power s, but a st at ut ory Tribunal funct ioning under t he Act of 1961. I t , t her efore, cannot act out side or de hors t he Act nor can ex er cise pow ers not ex pressly and specifically conferr ed by law. I t is well- set t led t hat t he pow er of r eview is not an inher ent power. Right t o seek r eview of an order is neit her nat ural nor fundam ent al right of an aggrieved part y. Such pow er m ust be conferred by law. I f t her e is no power of review , t he or der cannot be review ed. I t was also subm it t ed t hat

26. Our at t ent ion, in t his connect ion, was invit ed by t he learned counsel t o a leading decision of t his Court in Pat el Narshi Thaker shi & Ors. V. Pradyum ansinghj i Arj unsinghj i, ( 1971) 3 SCC 844. Dealing wit h t he provisions of t he Saurasht ra Land Refor m s Act , 1951 and referring t o Order 47, Rule 1 of t he Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is no t his Court held inherent pow er of review wit h t he adj udicat ing aut hor it y if it is not confer red by law. t her e t hat

27. The Court st at ed; “ I t is well set t led t hat t he power t o r eview is not an inherent pow er . I t m ust be conferr ed by law eit her specifically or by necessary im plicat ion. No provision in t he Act was br ought t o our not ice from w hich it could be gat hered t hat t he Governm ent had pow er t o review it s own order . I f t he Governm ent had no 31 power t o review it s ow n order , it is obvious t hat it s delegat e could not have review ed it s order” . ( em phasis supplied)

28. The view in Pat el Narshi Thakershi has been reit erat ed by t his Court in sev er al cases. I t is not necessary for us t o refer t o all t hose cases. The legal proposit ion has not been disput ed even by t he lear ned counsel for t he assessee.” 5 3 . Thus, if t he Act of 1961, as m andat ed by t he Finance Act , 2023, is viewed in t he background of t he law as set t led by t he Hon’ble Apex Court , as not ed supra, it is apparent t hat t he Schem e of t he Act does not vest any review power in t he A.O. or t he Com pet ent Aut horit y. 5 4 . I n t hat view, t he m ult iple present at ion and re- present at ion of t he proposal by t he A.O. was wit hout j urisdict ion and t he act of t he Com pet ent Aut horit y grant ing approval aft er t he sam e had been rej ect ed at t he very init ial st age it self was also an act wit hout j urisdict ion and we hold t hat t he proceedings of t he Com pet ent Aut horit y im pugned for grant ing sanct ion under Sect ion 151 of t he Act of 1961 dat ed

08.01.2021 are wholly wit hout j urisdict ion. 5 5 . That apart , we have perused t he Loose Papers 186 & 187. The Page com m ences wit h t he Header “ Sri Raj esh” and t he following alphabet s, on a close scrut iny, read as “ M” and “ P” . The second alphabet is in t he form of alphabet “ P” , but t he sam e has been read as “ D” and, t hereby, t he A.O. has 32 drawn a presum pt ion t hat it is Raj an Raj esh Kum ar, Managing Direct or of SI DCUL. 5 6 . Assum ing and even grant ing t he benefit of doubt t o t he A.O., t here are m ult iple ent ries and reference t o m ult iple persons, including m ult iple individuals and real est at e ent it ies. 5 7 . The fact rem ains t hat t he nam e of t he fat her of t he respondent also finds place t here, but unfort unat ely for t he appellant , t he revenue has accept ed and added t he sam e as t he incom e of t he fat her. 5 8 . That apart , t he appellant ’s counsel was not able t o point out any corroborat ive m at erial t o corroborat e t he assum pt ion and presum pt ion of t he A.O. t hat t he respondent has facilit at ed t he grant / award of t enders by UPRNN. Adm it t edly, t he UPRNN ( Ut t ar Pradesh Raj kiya Nirm an Nigam Lt d.) is an independent St at e Governm ent undert aking having it ’s own hierarchy of adm inist rat ion and t he respondent was t he Managing Direct or wit h a Chairm an and Board of Direct ors above him , adm inist ering an alt oget her different ent it y, t hough yet again anot her St at e Governm ent undert aking called t he SI DCUL ( St at e I nfrast ruct ure and I ndust rial Developm ent Corporat ion of Ut t arakhand Lt d) . 5 9 . Reliance of t he appellant on t he j udgm ent of t he Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of S. N a r a y a n a p p a a n d o t h e r s v s. Co m m i ssi o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x report ed in 1 9 6 7 33 ( 6 3 ) I TR 2 1 9 ( Paragraph- 4) , in our considered opinion, is wholly inapplicable t o t he fact s and circum st ances of t he present case. 6 0 . I n addit ion t o t he above, learned counsel for t he appellant has also placed reliance on t he following rulings of t he Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Court s: Sh r i v a st a v a A s so ci a t e s v s . 1 . Un i o n o f I n d i a v s. Ra j e e v Ba n s a l 2 0 2 4 ( 4 6 9 ) I TR 4 6 ( Pa r a - 4 ) 2 . I n co m e Ta x Of f i ce r ( 2 0 2 5 ) 1 7 4 t a x m a n n .co m 2 4 7 ( Ch a t t i sg a r h ) ( Pa r a s 1 0 t o 1 5 ) 3 . Co m m i s si o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x v s . K u . Pa . K r i s h n a n ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 5 t a x m a n n .co m 1 3 0 ( M a d r a s) ( Pa r a s 1 0 t o 1 2 ) 4 . Ro sh a n D i H a t t i v s. Co m m i ssi o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x ( 1 9 7 7 ) 1 0 7 I TR 9 3 8 ( SC) ( Pa r a 3 ) 5 . Co m m i s si o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x v s. Sa h a r a I n d i a [ 2 0 1 3 ] 3 3 t a x m a n n .co m 5 5 0 ( A l l a h a b a d ) ( Para- 19) 6 . Ra y m o n d W o o l l e n M i l l s Lt d . v s. I n co m e Ta x Of f i ce r [ 1 9 9 9 ] 2 3 6 I TR 3 4 ( SC) ( Pa r a - 3 ) 7 . K a n t i b h a i D h a r a m sh i b h a i N a r o l a v s. A s si st a n t Co m m i s si o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x , W a r d 3 ( 2 ) ( 4 ) [ 2 0 2 1 ] 1 2 5 t a x m a n n .co m 3 4 8 ( Gu j a r a t ) ( Pa r a - 3 2 ) . 8 . M a h a b i r Pr a sa d Ru n g t a v s. Co m m i ssi o n e r o f I n co m e - t a x ( A p p e a l s) , Ra n ch i [ 2 0 1 4 ] 4 3 t a x m a n n .co m 3 2 8 ( Jh a r k h a n d ) ( Pa r a s 1 5 t o 1 8 ) 9 . Co m m i s si o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x v s. D u r g a Pr a s a d M o r e [ 1 9 7 1 ] 8 2 I TR 5 4 0 ( SC) ( Pa r a s 8 t o 1 1 ) 1 0 . Su m a t i D a y a l v s. Co m m i s si o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x [ 1 9 9 5 ] 8 0 Ta x m a n 8 9 ( SC) ( Pa r a s 4 & 6 ) 1 1 . A sh o k K u m a r v s. Co m m i ssi o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x - I , Pa t n a [ 2 0 1 6 ] 6 9 t a x m a n n .co m 1 2 9 ( Pa t n a ) ( Pa r a s 1 2 t o 1 8 ) 1 2 . Ve n k y St e e l s ( P) Lt d . v s. Co m m i ssi o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x [ 2 0 2 4 ] 1 6 7 t a x m a n n .co m 6 0 ( Pa t n a ) ( Pa r a 1 1 ) 1 3 . Ex p e r i o n D e v e l o p e r s ( P.) Lt d . v s. A s si st a n t Co m m i s si o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x [ 2 0 2 0 ] 1 1 5 t a x m a n n .co m 3 3 8 ( D e l h i ) ( Pa r a 4 2 ) 1 4 . I si d o r e Fe r n a n d e s v s. A ssi st a n t Co m m i ssi o n e r o f I n co m e - t a x [ 2 0 2 4 ] 1 6 0 t a x m a n n .co m 2 1 6 ( B o m b a y ) ( Pa r a - 1 9 ) 34 6 1 . The above j udgm ent s, relied on by t he learned counsel for t he appellant , are not relevant for t he issue fram ed for det erm inat ion of t he appeal. 6 2 . Learned counsel for t he respondent has also relied on t he following rulings of t he Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of various High Court s: ( P) v s. Lt d . Lt d . El e ct r i ca l Co m p a n y Re m e d i e s

1. Ce n t r a l Bu r e a u o f I n v e st i g a t i o n v s. V.C. Sh u k l a a n d o t h e r s report ed in ( 1 9 9 8 ) 3 SCC 4 1 0 . 2. Co m m o n Ca u se ( A Re g i st e r e d So ci e t y ) v s. Un i o n o f I n d i a report ed in [ 2 0 1 7 ] 7 7 t a x m a n n .co m 2 4 5 ( SC) 3. Ge r m a n D e p u t y Co m m i ssi o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x r e p o r t e d in ( 2 0 0 6 ) 2 8 7 I TR 4 9 4 ( B o m .) ] 4. Vs. Un i t e d Co m m i s si o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x report ed in ( 2 0 0 2 ) 2 5 8 I TR 3 1 7 ( D e l .) 5. Co m m i s si o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x V s . S. Go y a n k a Li m e & Ch e m i ca l s Lt d . report ed in [ 2 0 1 5 ] 6 4 t a x m a n n .co m 3 1 3 ( SC) . 6. Ce n t r a l I n d i a El e ct r i c Su p p l y Co . Lt d . v s. I n c o m e Ta x Of f i ce r r eport ed in [ 2 0 1 1 ] 1 0 t a x m a n n .co m 1 6 9 ( D e l h i ) . 7. I n d i a Lt d . r eport ed in [ 2 0 1 0 ] 1 8 7 Ta x m a n 3 1 2 ( SC) . 8. Th e St a t e o f Te l a n g a n a v s. C. Sh o b h a Ra n i ( Cr i m i n a l A p p e a l N o . 4 9 5 5 o f 2 0 2 4 , decided on 03.12.2024) 9. St a t e o f H i m a c h a l Pr a d e sh v s . N i sh a n t Sa r e e n ( Cr i m i n a l A p p e a l N o . 2 3 5 3 o f 2 0 1 0 , decided on 09.12.2010) . 10. Pr i n ci p a l Co m m i ssi o n e r o f I n co m e - t a x - 6 Vs. M e e n a k sh i Ov e r se a s ( P.) Lt d . [ 2 0 1 7 ] 8 2 t a x m a n n .co m 3 0 0 ( D e l h i ) . 11. [ 1 9 7 1 ] 7 9 I TR 6 0 3 ( SC) . 12. Vi n o d K u m a r So l a n k i v s. A ssi s t a n t Co m m i s si o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x ( W .P. ( C) 4 1 9 6 o f 2 0 2 2 & CM A p p l . 3 9 9 8 2 / 2 0 2 2 , decided on 14.08.2024) . 13. K LM Ro y a l D u t c h A i r l i n e s Vs. A s si st a n t D i r e ct o r o f I n co m e Ta x [ 2 0 0 7 ] 1 5 9 Ta x m a n 1 9 1 ( D e l h i ) . Co m m i s si o n e r o f I n co m e Ta x v s. K e l v i n a t o r o f Ch h u g a m a l Ra j p a l v s. S.P. Ch a l i n a r eport ed 35 6 3 . The above said rulings in no way aid det erm inat ion of t he quest ion of law form ulat ed by t his Court and are of no avail t o t he appellant . 6 4 . I n t he absence of any m at erial t o dem onst rat e proxim it y bet ween t he part ies subj ect ed t o scrut iny and search and t he respondent , t he presum pt ion drawn by t he AO t hat illegal grat ificat ion was in lieu of t he works awarded t o him as t he sub- cont ract or of UPRNN would lead us t o suspect t he sanct it y of t he reasons t o believe, which form ed t he foundat ion for exercise of powers conferred under t he Act . 6 5 . I n view of t he above, we answer t he quest ion fram ed above against t he appellant / revenue and in favour of t he respondent / assessee. Accordingly, t he Appeal st ands dism issed wit hout being adm it t ed. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ G. N A REN DA R, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SUBH A SH UPA D H YA Y, J. Dt : 17 t h Decem ber, 2025 Rat hour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323779d9e3aeb 1097d17dbb53d481cabd25946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF92A40CC6179 B8E010331BA695239171F906FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR 36