Pradeep Himatlal Shah Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)
The Bombay High Court considered a writ petition relating to Assessment Year 2018-19, challenging the notice issued under Section 148, the order passed under Section 148A(d), both dated 7 April 2022, and the notice issued under Section 148A(b) dated 21 March 2022. The petitioner contended that the sanction for passing the order under Section 148A(d) and issuing the notice under Section 148 was invalid because it had been granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT).
The petitioner submitted that the matter was covered by the Bombay High Court’s earlier decision in Vodafone Idea Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, and the respondents agreed with this submission.
The Court noted that the impugned order and notice dated 7 April 2022 specifically recorded that the sanction had been accorded by the PCIT, Thane-1. Since the proceedings related to AY 2018-19 and the impugned order and notice were issued beyond three years, the sanctioning authority was required to be the PCCIT under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The Court further observed that the proviso to Section 151 became effective only from 1 April 2023 and, therefore, was not applicable to the present case.
