Ramesh Bachulal Mehta Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that re-assessment notice issued u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act is bad-in-law as being violative of provisions of section 151(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, order passed u/s. 148A(d) liable to be quashed.
Facts- The present writ petition inter-alia challenges the notice dated 15.07.2022 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The Petitioner has inter-alia contended [in Ground B of this petition] that the order passed under section 148A(d) is bad in law because Respondent No.1 has not obtained appropriate prior approval/sanction mandated under section 151.
Conclusion- Held that the authority specified under section 151(i) can accord sanction only upto 30.06.2021. This illustration makes it absolutely clear that when the period of three years from end of relevant Assessment Year expired between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021, the extension by virtue of TOLA was upto 30.06.2021 and not beyond. Thus, it can be said that the period of three years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year (here AY 2016-17) expired on 30.06.2021, whereas the Respondent No.1, despite passing the order on 13.07.2022 in repsect of Assessment Year 2016-17, has obtained approval of Respondent No.2 who is not the authority as prescribed under section 151(ii). Non-compliance by Respondent No.1 with the provisions contained in Section 148A(d) read with Section 151(ii) vitiates the jurisdiction of the Respondent No. 1 to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act.
