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

1/2 916-wp-2988-23.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2988 OF 2023 Aakash Investments V/s.Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1), Pune & Ors ….Petitioner ....Respondents ---- Mr. Sagar Tilak a/w Ms Payal Rathod i/b Mr. Sachin Hande for Petitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondent ---- 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 notices dated 21[st] March 2022 and 31[st]March 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(“the Act”), the order dated 11[th] April 2022 passed under Section 148A(d)of the Act and the notice also dated 11[th] April 2022 issued under Section148 of the Act. One of the grounds raised is that the sanction topass the order under Section 148A(d)of the Act and issuance of noticeunder Section 148 of the Act is invalid in as much as the sanction has been 1Writ Petition No.2768 of 2022 dated 6[th] February 2024 admittedly issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (“PCIT”)and not by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT”). 4The impugned order and the impugned notice both dated 11[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 11[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, 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. Mr. Suresh Kumar agrees.Consequently, the impugned order and impugned notice, both dated 11[th]April 2022, issued under section 148A(d) and 148, respectively, of the Actare hereby quashed and 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)