TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Both in respect of assessment years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, the petitioner had filed returns of income. With a view to reopen the relevant assessment, notices under Section 148 of the I-T Act (pre-amended) were issued to the petitioner on 29.06.2021. Such notices were challenged. Thereafter, based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal (Ashish Agarwal), (2022) 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC) 2022 such notices were directed to be deemed as notices under Section 148A(d) of the amended I-T Act. In response, the petitioner submitted a reply to such notice in respect of each assessment year. Thereafter, orders under Section 148A(d) of the I-T Act were issued in July 2022. On the same day, notices under Section 148 of the amended I-T Act were issued. Draft assessment orders under Section 144B were issued thereafter and these four writ petitions were filed in the said facts and circumstances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned orders and notices largely on the ground that approval of the specified authority in terms of Section 151 of the I-T Act was not obtained. By referring to Section 151, learned counsel points out that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ointed out that it was held that in the said judgment at paragraphs 7 to 12.3 that it was necessary to obtain approval under the amended Section 151 in respect of proceedings initiated after such amendment came into force. Since approval was obtained from the authority specified in clause (i) of Section 151 instead of clause (ii) thereof, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the order under Section 148 A(d) and notice under Section 148 were not valid. 5. As regards the applicability and impact of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), he submitted that the limited impact of the said enactment was to extend the time limit for completion of proceedings, issuance of orders, sanctions or approvals up to 31.03.2021. According to learned counsel, even assuming without admitting that TOLA is applicable, its applicability would have no impact on the specified authority for grant of sanction for proceedings initiated under Section 148. 6. Mr. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun Kumar, learned standing counsel, made submissions in response and to the contrary. He pointed out that Sections 147, 148, 149 and 151 constitute an interco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, learned counsel points out that the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Siemens Financial Services has been tagged with the S.L.P. arising out of the judgment in Rajeev Bansal and that both these matters are pending consideration before the Supreme Court. Therefore, he contends that sanction was accorded by the specified authority and that pre-amended Section 151 applies in such regard. 10. The primary ground of challenge is by relying on Section 151 of the I-T Act. Therefore, I begin by setting out amended Section 151 which is as under: "Sanction for issue of notice: 151. Specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A shall be,- (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year; (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year: [Provided that the period of three years for the purposes of clause (i) shall be computed after taking into account the period of limitation as excluded by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut exceptions, imposing conditions relating thereto, or whittling down or even expanding the scope thereof. The scope and ambit of a proviso should be construed primarily from text, albeit by placing such text in context. The following may be gleaned from the proviso to subsection( 1) of Section 149: it applies to assessment years commencing prior to 01.04.2021, i.e. assessment years before the amendments came into effect; and the time limits under Section 149(1)(b), Section 153A or 153C, as the case may be, as it stood before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, apply to notices under Section 148 in respect of cases pertaining to assessment years beginning on or before 01.04.2021. Since the disputes pertain to assessment years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, the proviso undoubtedly applies to these cases. What are the implications of the application of the proviso? In my view, as a consequence of the proviso, the time limit specified in the pre-amended Section 149 (1)(b) becomes applicable and the time limit prescribed therein was four years and not more than six years. What is the corollary thereof? 13. The orders and notices are challenged herein not on the ground that the time ....