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

1/2 904-aswp-142-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 142 OF 2023 M/s. Garve Motors Private Limited through its Director Shri. Vinayak Kishor GarveVersusThe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune & Ors. …Petitioner …Respondents Mr. Sagar Tilak a/w Ms. Payal Rathod & Ms. Tanvi Phatak i/b Mr. Sachin Hande for Petitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents-Revenue. PC:- CORAM:K. R. SHRIRAM &DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.DATED:27[th] February 2024 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 othergrounds, in the petition as well as during the hearing. Counsels statethat the issue of improper sanction has been decided by this Court inthe case of Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. 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”). Consequently, the sanction is GITALAXMIKRISHNAKOTAWADEKAR invalid. The Court has stated that in view of the invalid sanction, thenotice issued itself will be invalid and has to be quashed. We wouldalso add, if the notice has to be quashed, if there is anassessment order passed subsequently, that assessment order havingbeen passed relying on an incorrect sanction, will also have to bequashed. 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. Therefore, all such notices issued forAssessment Year 2017-2018 and orders impugned in this petition arequashed and set aside. All consequential notices, assessment orderand the consequential orders, if any, are also hereby quashed and setaside. 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.)