2024 (2) TMI 117 - HC - Income Tax

Income Tax Notice Quashed Due to Improper Sanction for AY 2016-17; Authorities May Reissue Under Correct Provision.

The HC of Bombay quashed a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-17, due to improper sanction under Section 151(i) ... Reopening of assessment - valid sanction u/s 151 (ii) or 151(i) - Assessment Year 2016-17 - HELD THAT:- As respondents, does not dispute that on facts as well as on law the issue raised in the present petition is covered by the judgment of this Court in Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (9) TMI 552 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the Court has held that for the Assessment Year 2016-17, the sanction should have been given u/s 151 (ii) and not u/s 151(i) and consequentially the sanction is invalid, on account of which, the notice issued itself would be rendered invalid and has to be quashed. Thus as the notice dated 01/07/2022 in the instant petition, relates to Assessment Year 2016-17 and refers to prior approval of the Principal CIT-1, Nagpur which is relatable to Section 151(i) and not to Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which position is not disputed by respondents, and since the date of the notice is 01/07/2022, what would be applicable would be Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In that factuality of the matter, the case being squarely covered by what has been held in Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the notice dated 01/07/2022 under Section 148 and all consequential action thereto are therefore quashed and set aside on the above ground. Though as per respondents, that there is a proposal to challenge the judgment in Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) before the Hon’ble Apex Court, that as yet has not been done, considering which there is no reason to entertain his request for an adjournment on that ground. Petition is accordingly allowed. The High Court of Bombay quashed a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2016-17 as the sanction should have been given under Section 151(ii) instead of Section 151(i) based on a previous judgment. The respondents did not dispute this and the petition was allowed with no costs. The respondents were permitted to take steps under Section 151(ii) if desired.