Jaydeep Construction v. Union Of India & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4760 OF 2022 Jaydeep Construction …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents WITHWRIT PETITION NO.10557 OF 2022(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) Gupta Builders and Developers …Petitioner VersusAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai & Ors. …Respondents WITHWRIT PETITION (L) NO.32881 OF 2022(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) Shankeshwar Parshwanath Jain…Petitioner VersusUnion of India & Ors. …Respondents WITHWRIT PETITION NO.592 OF 2023 Amit Hemraj GalaVersusAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1)(1) Mumbai & Ors. …Petitioner …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.667 OF 2023 Vijay Mohanlal Parekh …Petitioner VersusAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 32(1) Mumbai & Ors. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2386 OF 2023 …Petitioner Crescent Amity Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 9(2)(1) …Respondents Mr. Tanmay Phadke for Petitioner in WP 4760/2022 and WPL 32881/2022 Ms. Ayesha Ansari i/by ACE Legal for Petitioner in WP/10557/2022.Ms Shraddha Jadhav i/by Mr. Aagam Doshi for Petitioner in WP 592/2023.Mr. Govind Javeri for Petitioner in WP 667/2023 and WP2386/2023. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents in WP 4760/2022, WP/10557/2022, WPL 32881/2022 and WP 592/2023.Ms. Sushma Nagaraj for Respondents-Revenue in WP 667/2023 and WP 2386/2023. PC:- CORAM:K. R. SHRIRAM &NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.DATED:31st October 2023 1.These are Petitions which relate to Assessment Year 2016-2017or 2017-2018. 2Counsels state that in all these Petitions the issue of impropersanction having been obtained has been raised among other grounds,in the petition as well as during the hearing. Counsels state that theissue of improper sanction has been decided by this Court in the case of Siemens Financial Services Private Limited V/s. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax and Others[1], wherein the Court has heldthat for Assessment Year 2016-2017, the sanction should have beengiven under Section 151(ii) and not under Section 151(i) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and consequently the sanction is invalid. The Court has stated that in view of the invalid sanction, the notice issued itself will be invalid and has to bequashed. We would also add, if the notice has to be quashed, ifthere is an assessment order passed subsequently, those assessmentorders having been passed relying on an incorrect sanction, will alsohave to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. 3Counsels further state that the findings in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited (supra) will squarely apply to theAssessment Year 2017-2018 as well. Therefore, all such notices issuedfor Assessment Year 2017-2018, the assessment orders and theconsequential orders are also quashed and set aside. 4In view of the above, all consequential notices/demands issuedunder Section 156 or 271 of the Act will also have to be quashed.Ordered accordingly. 5 All Petitions disposed. 6 We clarify that all other grounds could be raised by the partiesat appropriate stage in any other proceeding. 7 In view of disposal of Petitions, pending interim application, ifany, also stands disposed of accordingly. (NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)