Allowing the petition the Court held that that since the notice under section 148 for the assessment year 2017-18 had been issued after a period of three years, the sanctioning authority had to be the Principal Chief Commissioner as provided under section 151(ii). The proviso to section 151 had been inserted only with effect from April 1, 2023 and, therefore, was not applicable. Hence, the sanction for passing of order under section 148A(d) and the consequent notice issued under section 148 were invalid and consequently, quashed and set aside. Followed Siemens Finacial Services Pvt Ltd v.Dy. CIT(2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bom)(HC)) AY. 2017-18)
Balkrishna Barsha Sutar v. ITO (2024)468 ITR 348 (Bom)(HC)
S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Notice issued after four or three years-Specified Authority for approval-Approval granted by Joint Commissioner-The authority statutorily empowered to confer approval would be the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner-Notice and reassessment proceedings invalid.[S. 147, 148,148A(b), 148A(d), 151(ii)-Taxation And Other Laws (Relaxation And Amendment Of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, S. 3. Art. 226]
Leave a Reply