TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1673
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/- on account of alleged commission income u/s 56 of the Act. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant had failed to prove that he had earned net commission income of Rs.8,19,700/- and therefore, the addition made by the learned A.O. was justified. 3] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had taken help of other persons in exchanging the currency notes and had paid passed on the commission to the said persons and accordingly, the net commission income offered by Rs.8,19,700/- was correct and the addition made of Rs.69,10,300/- may kindly be deleted. 4] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the entire transaction of exchange of currency notes was not recorded in the books and hence,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order passed u/s 148A(d), the learned A.O. in para 7 of the said order has stated that the said order has been passed after seeking approval of Pr. CIT-4, Pune. The assessee submits that from the said para, it is clear that the learned A.O. had passed the order u/s 148A(d) after seeking approval of Pr. CIT-4, Pune. 5] The assessee submits that the concerned asst. year is A.Y. 2017- 18 and hence, the notice u/s 148 has been issued after three years from the end of the concerned asst. year. Now, as per section 151, the specified authority for the purposes of section 148 and 148A are - a. Pr. Commissioner or Pr. Director or Commissioner or Director if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant asst. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g prior approval under section 148A(a) and Section 148A(b), it did not waive the requirement for Section 148A(d) and Section 148. Therefore, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval of the specified authority according to Section 151 of the new regime before passing an order under section 148A(d) or issuing a notice under section 148. These notices ought to have been issued following the time limits specified under section 151 of the new regime read with TOLA, where applicable." Considering the above decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is submitted that the notice issued by the learned A.O. is invalid in law. It is submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the A.O. ought to have obtained approval of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 12/07/2022. This fact is noted in the paragraph 7 of the said order. 4.1 The notice u/s.148 for A.Y.2017-18 was issued on 15.07.2022 with the approval of Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune vide the PCIT 4, Pune's letter No.PN/Pr.CIT-4/148/Proposal/2022- 23/1130 dated 12/07/2022. 4.2 Thus, it is an admitted fact that notice u/s.148 and order u/s.148A(d) of the Act was passed with the approval of Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax. 4.3 Section 151 of the I.T.Act is reproduced here 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cipal Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCIT"), Mumbai 5 and the approval has been granted on 7th April 2022. 2. Mr. Gandhi is correct in saying that the Assessment Year ("AY") is 2018-19 and, therefore, since more than three years have expired from the end of the assessment year, Sanctioning Authority under section 151(ii) of the Act should be the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax ("PCCIT") and not the PCIT. Mr. Gandhi says, as held in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154 taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.),the sanction is invalid and consequently, the order and the consequent notice under section 148A(d) and section 148, respectively, of the Act should be quashed and set aside. 3. In view of these facts and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 22nd April 2022 state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT, Mumbai-5. The matter pertains to Assessment Year ("AY") 2018-2019 and since the impugned order as well as the notice are issued on 22nd April 2022, both have been issued beyond a period of three years. Therefore, the sanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section151(ii) of the Act. The proviso to Section 151 of the Act has been inserted only with effect from 1st April2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand. 5. In the circumstances, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 154taxmann.com 159/457 ITR 647 (Bom.), the sanc....