This Petition Relates To Assessment Year 2017-2018 v. Itr 647 (Bom

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYDigitallysigned byPURTIORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONPURTIPRASADPRASADPARABPARABDate:2024.04.1816:05:25+0530WRIT PETITION NO. 1813 OF 2023 Lalitha Somasundaram….Petitioner V/s.Income Tax Officer 12(3)(1), Mumbaiand Ors.…Respondents ---- Mr. Arvind Pinto for Petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Kapadia i/b Ms. Sushma Nagaraj for Respondents-Revenue. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. DATED : 16[th] APRIL 2024 P.C. : 1.This petition relates to Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2.Counsels state that in this petition the issue of impropersanction having been obtained has been raised among other grounds, in thepetition as well as during the hearing. Counsels state that the issue ofimproper sanction has been decided by this court in the case of SiemensFinancial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax& Ors.[1] wherein the court has held that for Assessment Year 2016-2017, thesanction should have been given under Section 151(ii) and not underSection 151(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and consequently thesanction is invalid. The Court has stated that in view of the invalid sanction,the notice issued itself will be invalid and has to be quashed. We would also add, if the notice has to be quashed, if there is an assessment orderpassed subsequently, that assessment order having been passed relying onan incorrect sanction, will also have to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. 3.Counsels further state that the findings in Siemens FinancialServices Private Limited (supra) will squarely apply to this petition.Therefore, all notices and orders impugned in this petition are quashed andset aside. All consequential notices, assessment order and the consequentialorders, if any, are also hereby quashed and set aside. 4.Petition disposed. 5.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.)