Wp/9561/2023 Of Kishore Narayan Patil v. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Panvel And Ors
High Court
29 Sep 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newas
Parties
Wp/9561/2023 Of Kishore Narayan Patil v. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Panvel And Ors
Date of order
29 Sep 2023
Assessment year(s)
2016-2017
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp/9561/2023 Of Kishore Narayan Patil v. Income Tax Officer Ward 4 Panvel And Ors, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
1/2 458.WP-9561-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9561 OF 2023
Kishore Narayan Patil
….Petitioner
V/s.
Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 & Ors. ....Respondents----
Ms. Radha Halbe for petitioner.Mr. Ajeet Manwani a/w. Ms. Samiksha Kanani for respondents.
----
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM & KAMAL KHATA, JJ.DATED : 29[th] SEPTEMBER 2023
P.C. :
1This petition relates to Assessment Year 2016-2017.
2Counsels state that in this petition, the issue of impropersanction having been obtained has been raised among other grounds.Counsels further state that the issue of improper sanction has been decidedby this Court in the case of Siemens Financial Services Private Limited V/s.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others[1], wherein the Court hasheld that for Assessment Year 2016-2017, the sanction should have beengiven under Section 151(ii) and not under Section 151(i) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (the Act) and consequently, the sanction is invalid. The Court hasstated that in view of the invalid sanction, the notice issued itself will beinvalid and has to be quashed. Therefore, if the notice itself has to bequashed, the assessment order passed following the notice relying on an1. Writ Petition No.4888 of 2022 dated 25[th] August 2023
incorrect sanction will also has to be quashed.
3Counsels state that the findings in Siemens Financial ServicesPrivate Limited (Supra) should squarely apply to this petition as well on theissue of sanction.
4Therefore, we hereby quash and set aside order dated 25[th] July2022 passed under Section 148A(d), notice dated 26[th] July 2022 issuedunder Section 148, notice dated 29[th] June 2021 issued under Section 148which is now treated as show cause notice under Section 148A(b) inpursuant of issue letter dated 30[th] May 2022 and assessment order passedunder Section 147 read with Section 144B, notice of demand issued underSection 156, show cause notice initiating penalty under Section 271(1)(b)and show cause notice initiating penalty under Section 274 read withSection 271(1)(c) of the Act all dated 17[th] May 2023.
5Petition disposed.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
(K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.