Bombay High Court
Linkedin Singapore Pte. Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Ofincome-Tax ... on 24 April, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: K. R. Shriram, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-OS:6764-DB
1/3 904-oswp-2524-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2524 OF 2023
Linkedin Singapore PTE. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
International Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai &
Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Jeet Kamdar i/b Mr. Sameer G. Dalal for Petitioner.
Mr. Subir Kumar a/w Mr. Abhinav Palsikar for Respondents-
Revenue.
CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATED: 24th April 2024
PC :
1. The facts in this case are almost identical to the facts in Kartik Sureshchandra Gandhi v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 1. In the case at hand also, the approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), copy whereof has been annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed through one Sanjay V. Deshmukh currently holding the post of Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation and affirmed on 21st November 2023, in Box-9 for time limit for current proceedings covered under, the answer is, under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act - for more than 3 years, but not more than 10 years.
1. [2023] 154 taxmann.com 193 (Bombay).
Gitalaxmi
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 06:17:43 :::
2/3 904-oswp-2524-2023.doc
2. Mr. Kamdar states that in such a case, the approval should be granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and the approving authority Mr. Vijay Shankar being only the Commissioner of Income Tax ("CIT"), the approval was not valid. Mr. Subir Kumar submitted that it is the system which automatically gives the answer for Box-9, because the assessment year is of 2019-2020 and the approval date is 27th April 2023.
3. Even if for a moment we accept what Mr. Subir Kumar states is correct or is possible, in such a case, the approving authority Mr. Vijay Shankar should have returned the approval for correcting the form or atleast made a remark in his own handwriting. We cannot even make out whether the order-sheet has been signed by the same Mr. Vijay Shankar, CIT, who has given the approval, because the approval form annexed to the petition is unsigned.
4. Mr. Subir Kumar gave to the Court a copy of an order-sheet dated 27th April 2023 signed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation-3), Mumbai granting approval to the draft order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. When the approval has been granted only on 27th April 2023, the CIT should have realized that it is more than three years after the expiry of assessment year, which was 2019-2020. If some time has to be excluded as per the fifth proviso to Section 149 of the Act, that should have been mentioned Gitalaxmi ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 06:17:43 ::: 3/3 904-oswp-2524-2023.doc in the order-sheet, otherwise it would only amount to exercising jurisdiction which he never had.
5. In the circumstances, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27th April 2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the impugned notice also dated 27 th April 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act.
6. Petition disposed.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Digitally signed
by GITALAXMI
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2024.04.26
11:09:21 +0545
Gitalaxmi
::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/05/2024 06:17:43 :::