Equitable Financial Consultancy ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3) ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4483 Bom

                                                                                    911-WP-43-2022.odt


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 43 OF 2022
Equitable Financial Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.                    ...      Petitioner
          Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward (1)(1)(3) and others                         ...      Respondents
                                              .........
Mr. Vasudev Ginde instructed by Mr. Kumar Kale for the Petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondents.
                                    .........
                                                        CORAM :       K.R. SHRIRAM AND
                                                                      N.R. BORKAR, JJ.

                                                        DATED :       APRIL 27, 2022

P.C. :-

1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Order dated 25 th January, 2022 reads as

under :

". Mr. Ginde, for Petitioner submits that as per notice dated 31 March, 2021 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, st

1961 (the said Act) by Respondents for A.Y. 2015-2016, the proposed reopening is after the expiry of four years. Therefore, the approval prescribed under section 151(1) of the Act has to be issued by Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.

2. Mr. Ginde further submitted that as could be seen from the approval under section 151 of the Act along with a letter dated 31 st March, 2021 from the Additional CIT Range 1(1) addressed to the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), the approval has been granted by Additional CIT and therefore the sanction as required under section 151 of the Act, has not been validly given. Mr. Ginde, states that on this ground alone, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act impugned in the Petition has to be set aside.

Kanchan P Dhuri                                                                           1   / 4
                                                                                911-WP-43-2022.odt

2. Mr. Suresh Kumar requests the Petition be listed on 8 th February, 2022 so that he can take instructions and also file affidavit in reply if required, in the meanwhile."

2. No reply has been filed till date.

3. Copy of the approval granted under Section 151 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act) is placed on record. The approval has been given

by one Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Range 1(1), Mumbai. Exhibit - E to the Petition is a

copy of a letter dated 31st March, 2021 addressed by the said Pankaj Kumar to

the Income Tax Officer 1(1)(3), Mumbai in which the designation of Mr.

Pankaj Kumar is given as Additional CIT, Range 1(1), Mumbai. Mr. Suresh

Kumar also confirms that Mr. Pankaj Kumar is the Additional CIT who has

granted the approval.

4. According to Respondents the case at hand is within four years

from the end of the assessment year under consideration, in view of extension

of limitation date due to Covid situation. The Assessing Officer has not

explained in the reasons recorded as to how the limitation date has got

extended. Mr. Suresh Kumar states that he is relying on Taxation and other

Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, by which limitation,

inter alia, under provisions of Section 151(1) and Section 151(2), which

were originally expiring on 31st March 2020 stood extended to 31st March

2021 and in view thereof, for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 which falls

Kanchan P Dhuri 2 / 4 911-WP-43-2022.odt

under the category within four years as on 31 st March 2020, the statutory

approval for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act was given by

the Additional Commissioner.

5. Even if for a moment, we agree with Mr. Suresh Kumar, still it

applies to only cases where the limitation was expiring on 31 st March 2020. In

the case at hand, the assessment year is 2015-2016 and, therefore, the six

years limitation will expire only on 31 st March 2022. Therefore, the Relaxation

Act provisions cannot be applicable. Even if, the time to issue notice is

considered to have been extended, that would not amount to amending the

provisions of Section 151 of the Act.

6. In our view, for the case at hand, the approval ought to have been

given by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or

Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and not by the Additional

Commissioner of Income Tax. We find support for this view in judgment of

this court in Voltas Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Ors.1 and J.M. Financial and Investment

Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Circle 3(2)(1) & Ors. 2. Therefore, on

this ground alone the impugned notice dated 31st March 2021 issued under

Section 148 of the Act is quashed and set aside. Therefore, consequential

orders dated 8th November, 2021 and 15th December, 2021 will also have to go.

1    2022 SCC Online Bom 741
2    Order dated 4th April, 2022 in Writ Petition No. 1050 of 2022



Kanchan P Dhuri                                                                3   / 4
                                                                                                           911-WP-43-2022.odt

7. Petition disposed with no order as to costs.

                              ( N.R. BORKAR, J. )                                              ( K.R. SHRIRAM, J. )
           Digitally signed
           by KANCHAN
KANCHAN    PRASHANT
PRASHANT   DHURI
DHURI      Date:
           2022.04.27
           18:10:27 +0530




                              Kanchan P Dhuri                                                                 4   / 4