Shatrunjay Investments v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Kalyan & Ors

1/2 402-aswp-5928-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5928 OF 2023 Shatrunjay InvestmentsVersusIncome Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Kalyan & Ors. …Petitioner …Respondents Mr. Dharan Gandhi for Petitioner. Mr. Ajeet Manwani a/w Ms. Samiksha Kanani for Respondents. PC:- CORAM:K. R. SHRIRAM &DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.DATED:20[th] February 2024 1. This petition relates to Assessment Year 2016- 2017. 2.Counsels 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) andnot under Section 151(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”).Consequently, the sanction is invalid. The Court has stated that inview of the invalid sanction, the notice issued itself will be invalid GITALAXMIKRISHNAKOTAWADEKAR Digitally signed byGITALAXMI KRISHNAKOTAWADEKARDate: 2024.02.2211:18:56 +0545 and has to be quashed. We would also add, if the notice has to bequashed, if there is an assessment order passed subsequently, theassessment order having been passed relying on an incorrectsanction, will also have to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. 3.Counsels further state that the findings in Siemens FinancialServices Private Limited (supra) would squarely apply to this petitionas well on the issue of sanction. 4.Therefore, all such notices issued for Assessment Year 2016-2017, the assessment orders and the consequential orders are alsoquashed and set aside. 5.Petition disposed. 6.We clarify that all other grounds could be raised by the partiesat appropriate stage in any other proceeding. (DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)