Bombay High Court
Shri Vardhaman Multi State Cooperative ... vs Income Tax Officer. Ward - 3, Akola And ... on 23 January, 2024
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
2024:BHC-NAG:984-DB
37-wp3681.23.odt
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3681 OF 2023
Shri Vardhaman Multi Staet Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Washim
-Vs.-
Income Tax Officer, Akola and others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Kapil Hirani, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.B.N.Mohta, counsel for the respondents.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 23RD JANUARY, 2024
Mr.Mohta, learned counsel for the 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. v. Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax and others , (Writ Petition
No.4888 of 2022), decided on 25/09/2023, wherein the
Court has held that for the Assessment Year 2016-17, the
sanction should have been given under Section 151 (ii) and
not under Section 151(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and
consequentially the sanction is invalid, on account of which,
the notice issued itself would be rendered invalid and has
to be quashed.
2. In view of the aforesaid position, as the notice
dated 01/07/2022 (pg.174) in the instant petition, relates
to Assessment Year 2016-17 and refers to prior approval of
KHUNTE
37-wp3681.23.odt
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 Mr. Mohta, learned
counsel for the 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 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (page-174) and all consequential
action thereto are therefore quashed and set aside on the
above ground.
3. Though Mr.Mohta, learned counsel for the
respondents, submits 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.
4. The petition is accordingly allowed in the above
terms. No order as to costs.
5. Needless to say, that it would be permissible for the
respondents to take appropriate steps in terms of Section
151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in case they so desire.
(SMT.M.S.JAWALKAR,J) (AVINASH G.GHAROTE,J)
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/01/2024 10:25:58
KHUNTE
