Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : MA Multi-Infra Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Petition No. 1650 of 2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 09/01/2023
Related Assessment Year : 2015-16
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

MA Multi-Infra Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court)

On a perusal of the notice dated 31st March 2021 issued u/s.148 of the Act by the Assessing Officer shows that the same has been issued after obtaining necessary satisfaction of the Range 3(2), Mumbai. As per the objections filed by the revenue, the approval was obtained from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax of Income-tax, Range (3)(2), Mumbai. The said officer, it is stated, was competent to grant approval in view of the applicability of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Relaxation Act’).

It is stated that in terms of the Relaxation Act, the limitation inter-alia, under provisions of sections 151(i) and 151(ii) of the Act, which were originally expiring on 31st March 2020, stood extended to 31st March 2021. It was, thus, urged that since the Relaxation Act had extended the period of limitation, the authority which was otherwise supposed to grant approval in regard to cases falling within the ambit of section 151(i) of the Act could have granted approval beyond the period of three years based upon the Relaxation Act.

This Court in J.M. Financial & Investment Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.1 has already taken a view holding that the Relaxation Act would apply only to cases where the limitation was expiring on 31st March 2020 and since for the assessment year 2015-16, the limitation period was six years which was to expire only on 31st March 2022, the said provisions would not be applicable. It was held while the time to issue notice may have been extended but that would not amount to amending the provisions of section 151 of the Act.

In our view, the present case is squarely covered by the view taken by this Court in M. Financial & Investment Consultancy Services (P) Ltd. (Supra). We accordingly hold that the approval for issuance of notice u/s. 148 ought not have been obtained from the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax but from the authority specifcally mentioned u/s. 151(ii) of the Act.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

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

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031