Bombay High Court
Shashikant Banka Huf vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 22 2 1 Mumbai ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: K. R. Shriram, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-OS:7568-DB
1/3 520-oswpl-14127-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 14127 OF 2024
Shashikant Banka HUF ...Petitioner
Versus
The Income Tax Officer, Ward-22(2)(1),
Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Jitendra Singh for Petitioner.
Ms. Mamta Omle for Respondents-Revenue.
CORAM: K. R. SHRIRAM &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATED: 7th May 2024
PC :
1. Mentioned out of turn.
2. Ms. Mamta Omle undertakes to file vakalatnama within a week from today. Undertaking accepted.
3. This petition relates to Assessment Year 2018- 2019.
4. Mr. Singh for Petitioner states that this petition is covered by the order passed by this Court in the case of Vodafone Idea Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.1. Ms. Omle for Respondents agrees.
5. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 7th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), the order
1. Writ Petition No. 2768 of 2022 dated 6th February 2024.
Gitalaxmi
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2024 21:15:18 :::
2/3 520-oswpl-14127-2024.doc
also dated 7th April 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the impugned notice dated 22nd March 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. One of the grounds raised is that the sanction to pass the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is invalid inasmuch as the sanction has been admittedly issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT") and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT").
6. The impugned order dated 7th April 2022 and the impugned notices dated 7th April 2022 & 22nd March 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai-20. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-2019. Since the impugned order dated 7th April 2022 as well as the impugned notices dated 7th April 2022 & 22nd March 2022 have been issued beyond a period of three years, therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151(ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 of the Act has been inserted only with effect from 1 st April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand.
7. In these circumstances, Mr. Singh submits that as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.2, the sanction is invalid. Ms.
2. (2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bom.).
Gitalaxmi
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2024 21:15:18 :::
3/3 520-oswpl-14127-2024.doc
Omle agrees. Consequently, the impugned order dated 7th April 2022 passed under Sections 148A(d) of the Act and the impugned notice also dated 7th April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act and the impugned notice dated 22nd March 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, are hereby quashed and set aside. Consequential orders and notices, if any, are also quashed and set aside.
8. Petition disposed. No order as to costs. All rights and contentions are kept open.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Digitally signed
by GITALAXMI
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2024.05.08
18:05:06 +0545
Gitalaxmi
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2024 21:15:18 :::