The High Court allowed the assessee’s writ petition challenging the re-opening of its assessment for the A.Y. 2015-16 on the ground of invalid approval under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Additional Commissioner, holding that since the reopening was more than four years after the end of the expiry of the relevant AY. the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 would not apply and only the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner could have accorded the approval. High court Followed, J.M. Financial and Investment consultancy Services Pvt Ltd v. ACIT (2023) 451 ITR 205 (Bom)(HC). On SLP by Revenue a dismissing the petition, the Court held that the reopening was after four years and it was apparent that the assessee had made disclosure of payment and deduction of Rs. 3.6 crores while computing capital gains in the regular assessment proceedings. Order of High Court is affirmed. (AY. 2015-16)
Dy. CIT v. Sidhmicro Equities Pvt. Ltd. (2023)453 ITR 35 (SC) Editorial : Sidhmicro Equities Pvt. Ltd v.Dy.CIT (2023) 451 ITR 33(Bom)(HC), affirmed.
S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice – Notice after four years -Capital gains – Sanction of prescribed Authority -Approval by Joint Commissioner held to be valid —SLP of Revenue dismissed. [S. 147, 148, 151(1), Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2002, Art. 136, 226]