Case Law Details
Giriraj Commercial Private Limited Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court held that considering the provisions, order passed u/s 148A(d) is within three years and accordingly, Principal CIT (PCIT) and not the Principal Chief CIT (PCCIT) is ‘Specified Authority’ for approval of the same. Thus, AO rightly took approval from Principal CIT.
Facts- By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 7th April, 2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2018-19 on the ground that the same has been passed without approval from the “Specified Authority” as described under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by contending that the approval has been taken from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax when admittedly the specified authority for approval in this case is Principal Chief CIT since three years has not been passed from the end of the relevant assessment year on the date when the aforesaid impugned order was passed as alleged by the petitioner.
Conclusion- It is an admitted position that after taking into consideration the period allowed to the Assessing Officer under the aforesaid fifth and sixth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by excluding the time granted to the petitioner to file response to the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act and a further period of seven days are excluded from the date of expiry of normal period of three years for the purpose of assessment, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act is very much within three years in this case and as such for passing the aforesaid impugned order Principal CIT and not the Principal Chief CIT is “Specified Authority” for approval of the same.
Held that “Specified Authority” for the purpose of approval in this case is Principal CIT and the assessing officer has rightly taken approval from the Principal CIT concerned and such approval for passing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act is perfectly legal and valid and the aforesaid impugned order does not call for any interference by this Writ Court.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
