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

Digitallysigned byMEERAMEERAMAHESHMAHESHJADHAVJADHAVDate:2024.04.2617:47:18+0530 1/3 905-wp-5880-24.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5880 OF 2024 Hostin Services Pvt Ltd ….Petitioner V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCircle 1(1) & Ors. ....Respondents ---- Ms Radha Halbe for Petitioner.Mr. Arjun Gupta for Respondents. ---- CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.DATED : 25[th] APRIL 2024 P.C. : 1This petition relates to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2Ms Halbe 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 forrespondents agrees. 3Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 30[th] March 2022 issued underSection 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), the order dated13[th] April 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice alsodated 13[th] April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act. One of the 1Writ Petition No.2768 of 2022 dated 6[th] February 2024 2/3 905-wp-5880-24.doc grounds raised is that the sanction to pass the order underSection 148A(d)of the Act and issuance of notice under Section 148 of theAct 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 13[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 13[th] April 2022,both have been issued beyond a period of three years; therefore, thesanctioning authority has to be the PCCIT as provided under Section151(ii)of the Act. The provisio to Section 151 has been inserted only witheffect from 1[st] April 2023 and, therefore, shall not be applicable to thematter at hand. 5 In these circumstances, Ms Halbe submits, as held by this Court inSiemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax & Ors.[2] the sanction is invalid. Mr. Gupta agrees. Consequently,the impugned order and impugned notice, both dated 13[th] April 2022,issued under section 148A(d) and 148, respectively, of the Act are herebyquashed and set aside. Consequential assessment orders, demand ordersand penalty notices, etc. are also quashed and set aside. 2(2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bom) 3/3 905-wp-5880-24.doc 6 Petition disposed. No order as to costs. All rights and contentions arekept open. (Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)