Case LawHigh Court › Rekha Vishal Jadhav v. Income Tax Office...

Rekha Vishal Jadhav v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kalyan & Ors

High Court 25 Oct 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Rekha Vishal Jadhav v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kalyan & Ors
Date of order
25 Oct 2023
Assessment year(s)
2016-2017
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Rekha Vishal Jadhav v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kalyan & Ors, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12785 OF 2023 Rekha Vishal JadhavVersusIncome Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kalyan & Ors. …Petitioner …Respondents Mr. Jitendra Singh for Petitioner.Ms. Samiksha Kanani for Respondents. CORAM:K. R. SHRIRAM &NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.DATED:25[th] October 2023 PC:- 1.At the outset, Mr. Singh tenders draft amendment which istaken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. Leave to amendgranted. Amendment to be carried out and amended Petition to beserved within one week from today. 2.This Petition relates to Assessment Year 2016-2017. 3Counsels state that in this Petition, the issue of impropersanction having been obtained has been raised among other grounds.Counsels further state that the issue of improper sanction has beendecided by this Court in the case of Siemens Financial ServicesPrivate Limited V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax andOthers,[1] wherein the Court has held that for Assessment Year 2016-2017, the sanction should have been given under Section 151(ii) and not under Section 151(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) andconsequently, the sanction is invalid. The Court has stated that inview of the invalid sanction, the notice issued itself will be invalidand has to be quashed. Therefore, if the notice itself has to bequashed, the assessment order passed following the notice relying onan incorrect sanction will also has to be quashed. 4Counsels state that the findings in Siemens Financial ServicesPrivate Limited (Supra) squarely apply to this Petition as well on theissue of sanction. 5Therefore, we hereby quash and set aside order passed underSection 148A(d) of the Act and notice under Section 148 of the Actboth dated 27[th] July 2022, impugned assessment order dated 29[th]May 2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of theAct along with consequential demand notice and penalty notice bothdated 29[th] May 2023. 6Petition disposed. (NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan