This Petition Relates To Assessment Year 2018-19 v. Deputycommissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.[1] Counsel Forrespondent Agrees

1/2 908-wp-2983-23.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2983 OF 2023 Aashish Niranjan Shah V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors ….Petitioner ....Respondents ---- Mr. Mr. Sagar Tilak a/w Ms Payal Rathod i/b Mr. Sachin Hande forPetitioner.Ms Samiksha Kanani for Respondent-Revenue. ---- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.DATED : 6[th] MARCH 2024 P.C. : 1This petition relates to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2Mr. Tilak for petitioner states this petition is covered by the orderpassed by this court in the case of Vodafone Idea Limited Vs. DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai & Ors.[1] Counsel forrespondent agrees. 3Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 22[nd] March 2022 issued underSection 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), the order dated5[th] April 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice alsodated 5[th] April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. One of thegrounds raised is that the sanction to pass the order underSection 148A(d)of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is invalid in as much as the sanction has been admittedly issued by thePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax (“PCIT”) and not by the PrincipalChief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT”). 4The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 5[th] April2022, state that the Authority that has accorded the sanction is the PCIT,Mumbai. The matter pertains to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19. Since theimpugned order as well as the notice are both issued on 5[th] April 2022, bothhave been issued beyond a period of three years; therefore, the sanctioningauthority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section 151(ii)of the Act.The provisio to Section 151 has been inserted only with effect from 1[st] April2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to the matter at hand. 5 In these circumstances, Mr. Tilak submits, as held by this Court in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax & Ors.[2] the sanction is invalid. Ms Kanani agrees. Consequently,the impugned order and impugned notice, both dated 5[th] April 2022, issuedunder section 148A(d) and 148, respectively, of the Act are hereby quashedand set aside. 6 Petition disposed. No order as to costs. All rights and contentions arekept open. (Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) 2(2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bom)