Held that the copy of approval granted under section 151(1) of the Act, placed on record, stated that the approval had been given by the Additional Commissioner. The approval ought to have been given by the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner and not by the Additional Commissioner. Therefore, the notice dated March 31, 2021, issued under section 148 of the Act was quashed and set aside. Court also held that the Assessing Officer had not explained in the reasons recorded as to how the limitation got extended. Still the extension of limitation applies to only cases where the limitation was expiring on March 31, 2020. That the six years limitation for the assessment year 2015-16 would expire only on March 31, 2022. Therefore, the provisions of the Relaxation Act would not be applicable. Even if, the time to issue notice was considered to have been extended, that would not amount to amending the provisions of section 151 of the Act.(AY.2015-16)
Equitable Financial Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2023)457 ITR 644 (Bom)(HC)
S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-After the expiry of four years-Sanction-Limitation-Approval by additional commissioner is not valid-Approval ought to be given by Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner-Notice is quashed-Provisions of Relaxation Act is applicable only cases expiring on 31-3 20200-Limitation expiring on 31-3 2022-Provisions of Relaxation Act is not applicable-[S. 147, 148 151(1), 151(2), Art.226]