Bombay High Court
Equitable Financial Consultancy ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3) Mumbai ... on 27 April, 2022
Bench: K.R. Shriram, N.R. Borkar
911-WP-43-2022.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 43 OF 2022
Equitable Financial Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward (1)(1)(3) and others ... Respondents
.........
Mr. Vasudev Ginde instructed by Mr. Kumar Kale for the Petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondents.
.........
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM AND
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 27, 2022 P.C. :-
1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Order dated 25 th January, 2022 reads as under :
". Mr. Ginde, for Petitioner submits that as per notice dated 31 March, 2021 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, st 1961 (the said Act) by Respondents for A.Y. 2015-2016, the proposed reopening is after the expiry of four years. Therefore, the approval prescribed under section 151(1) of the Act has to be issued by Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.
2. Mr. Ginde further submitted that as could be seen from the approval under section 151 of the Act along with a letter dated 31 st March, 2021 from the Additional CIT Range 1(1) addressed to the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), the approval has been granted by Additional CIT and therefore the sanction as required under section 151 of the Act, has not been validly given. Mr. Ginde, states that on this ground alone, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act impugned in the Petition has to be set aside.
Kanchan P Dhuri 1 / 4
911-WP-43-2022.odt
2. Mr. Suresh Kumar requests the Petition be listed on 8 th February, 2022 so that he can take instructions and also file affidavit in reply if required, in the meanwhile."
2. No reply has been filed till date.
3. Copy of the approval granted under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act) is placed on record. The approval has been given by one Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Range 1(1), Mumbai. Exhibit - E to the Petition is a copy of a letter dated 31st March, 2021 addressed by the said Pankaj Kumar to the Income Tax Officer 1(1)(3), Mumbai in which the designation of Mr. Pankaj Kumar is given as Additional CIT, Range 1(1), Mumbai. Mr. Suresh Kumar also confirms that Mr. Pankaj Kumar is the Additional CIT who has granted the approval.
4. According to Respondents the case at hand is within four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration, in view of extension of limitation date due to Covid situation. The Assessing Officer has not explained in the reasons recorded as to how the limitation date has got extended. Mr. Suresh Kumar states that he is relying on Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, by which limitation, inter alia, under provisions of Section 151(1) and Section 151(2), which were originally expiring on 31st March 2020 stood extended to 31st March 2021 and in view thereof, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 which falls Kanchan P Dhuri 2 / 4 911-WP-43-2022.odt under the category within four years as on 31 st March 2020, the statutory approval for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act was given by the Additional Commissioner.
5. Even if for a moment, we agree with Mr. Suresh Kumar, still it applies to only cases where the limitation was expiring on 31 st March 2020. In the case at hand, the assessment year is 2015-2016 and, therefore, the six years limitation will expire only on 31 st March 2022. Therefore, the Relaxation Act provisions cannot be applicable. Even if, the time to issue notice is considered to have been extended, that would not amount to amending the provisions of Section 151 of the Act.
6. In our view, for the case at hand, the approval ought to have been given by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and not by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. We find support for this view in judgment of this court in Voltas Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Ors.1 and J.M. Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Circle 3(2)(1) & Ors. 2. Therefore, on this ground alone the impugned notice dated 31st March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed and set aside. Therefore, consequential orders dated 8th November, 2021 and 15th December, 2021 will also have to go. 1 2022 SCC Online Bom 741 2 Order dated 4th April, 2022 in Writ Petition No. 1050 of 2022 Kanchan P Dhuri 3 / 4 911-WP-43-2022.odt
7. Petition disposed with no order as to costs.
( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) ( K.R. SHRIRAM, J. ) Digitally signed by KANCHAN KANCHAN PRASHANT PRASHANT DHURI DHURI Date: 2022.04.27 18:10:27 +0530 Kanchan P Dhuri 4 / 4