TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 523
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s whereby the notice dated 29th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the IT Act") has been revived pursuant to the Order dated 6th October 2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(3), Mumbai & Ors vs. Surjit Bhojsingh Ailsinghani [Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 28634/2025]. 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are as under: i. The Petitioner is an Individual who is regularly assessed to tax. For the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, the Petitioner filed his Return of Income on 17th October 2016, declaring a total income of Rs.2,58,35,670/-. This Return of Income was picked up for scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Income Tax - 27, Mumbai. A notice dated 29th July 2022 was also issued by Respondent No. 1 under Section 148 of the IT Act. v. The Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act as well as the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 17167 of 2023 filed before this Court. This Writ Petition was disposed of by a consolidated Order dated 17th October 2023 along with other Writ Petitions, wherein, following the judgment of this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others [Writ Petition No. 4888 of 2022, dated 25th August 2023], this Court quashed the notices issued under Section 148 of the IT Act and all conse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a V/s Rajeev Bansal (supra) inasmuch as he did not appreciate that the specified authority referred to under Section 151(i) could have granted sanction for A.Y. 2016-17 only up to 30th June 2021, even after considering the extension granted by TOLA. In the Petitioner's case, however, the order under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act was passed on 29th July 2022, and also the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act was issued on 29th July 2022. Therefore, a sanction under Section 151(ii) of the IT Act was necessary. However, in the Petitioner's case, a sanction was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 151(i) of the IT Act, which is not valid. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 days. Thus, even if one were to adopt the reasoning of Respondent No. 1, then the surviving period would expire on 5th June 2022, (i.e., 2 days after the date on which the Petitioner filed reply on 3rd June 2022), and not on 31st August 2022 as claimed by Respondent No. 1. in the impugned order. Thus, even by the Respondent No. 1's own stand, the notice under Section 148 dated 29th July 2022 was issued beyond three years after obtaining sanction under Section 151(i), which is invalid. 6. Mr. Arjun Gupta, learned Counsel for the Revenue, supported the impugned order. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. In the present case, the period of three years from the end of the Assessment Year 2016-17 fell for completio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it's order in the context of Assessment Year 2017-18, wherein it is categorically held that the authority specified under Section 151(i) can accord sanction only upto 30.06.2021. This illustration makes it absolutely clear that when the period of three years from end of relevant Assessment Year expired between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021, the extension by virtue of TOLA was upto 30.06.2021 and not beyond. Thus, it can be said that the period of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year (here AY 2016-17) expired on 30.06.2021, whereas the Respondent No. 1, despite passing the order on 13.07.2022 in respect of Assessment Year 2016-17, has obtained approval of Respondent No.2 who is not the authority as prescribed under Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) is in favour of the Petitioner on the issue of sanction under Section 151. Respondent No. 1, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to revive the proceedings under Section 147/148 of the IT Act, which he sought to do by virtue of the impugned order dated 13th January 2026. Therefore, the impugned order dated 13th January 2026 is required to be quashed and set aside. 10. We, accordingly, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 13th January 2026 passed by Respondent No. 1 whereby he revived the proceedings under Section 148 of the IT Act and commenced assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the IT Act, and allow this Writ Petition in terms of Prayer Clause (a), which reads thus: "(a) ....