JM Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

Court: Bombay High Court
Head Notes:

S. 151 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Limitation-Sanction-Sanction by Additional Commissioner instead of Principal Commissioner-Taxation and other laws (Relaxation of certain Provisions) Act, 2020 only extended period of limitation and not for approval by the competent Authority-Sanction by Additional Commissioner was held to be bad in law-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 147, 148, Art. 226]

The asessee is in the business of investment and financing activities. For the Assessment year 2015-16 the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on. 12-12-2017. The notice u/s 148 of the Act dt. 31-3- 2021 was received by the assessee. The various objections of the assessee was rejected and order disposing the objection was passed on 24-1 2022. The assessee challenged the order disposing the objections on various grounds by filing the writ before the High Court. One of the ground of challenge was the assessment of the assessee was reopened after expiry of four years from the relevant assessment year after obtaining the approval from the Additional Commissioner instead of Principal Commissioner. The revenue contended that In view of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation of certain Provisions Act, 2020 (Relaxation Act) limitation, inter alia under provisions of section 151 (1) and section 151 (2) which were originally expiring on 31st March 2020 stand extended too 31st March, 2021. According to the Income tax officer the assessment year 2015-16 which falls under the category with in four years as on 31st March 2020, the statutory approval for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act for the Assessment year 2015 -16 may be given the Range Head as per the said provisions. Allowing the petition the Court held that since four years had expired from the end of the relevant assessment year, as provided under section 151(1) of the Act, it is only the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner who could have accorded the approval and not the additional Commissioner of Income tax. Accordingly the notice issued under section. 148 of the Act with the approval of Additional Commissioner was quashed (AY. 2015 -16) (WP No. 10050 of 2022 dt. 4-4-2022).
JM Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC)

(Coram : Hon’ble Justice Shri K.R. SHRIRAM & Hon’ble Justice Shri N.R. BORKAR)

Section(s): 151
Counsel(s): Dr. K. Shivaram Sr. Advocate
Dowload Pdf File Click here to download the file in pdf format
Date of upload: April 8, 2022

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *