ACIT Vs Sangeeta Sailesh Bhoolabhai (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court of India has disposed of several tax-related Special Leave Petitions, referencing its earlier judgment in the case of “Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal.” The court stated that the present petitions are covered by the principles established in that ruling, and assessing officers are directed to address taxpayer objections accordingly. For cases pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-2017, the court specifically applied its decision in “Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.” This earlier judgment held that for this particular assessment year, sanction for reassessment should have been obtained under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rather than Section 151(i). Consequently, in the matters before the court concerning AY 2016-2017 where incorrect sanction was obtained, the court found the sanction, and thus the subsequent notices and assessment orders, to be invalid. All such impugned notices and orders were quashed and set aside, along with any consequential actions. The court clarified that other legal grounds remain open for parties to pursue in separate proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. These Special Leave Petitions are squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court rendered on 3-10-2024 in “Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal” (Civil Appeal No.8629/2024 etc.) 2024 (11) Scale 473.
3. In view of the above, the petitions filed by the Revenue are disposed of. The assesses will be governed by reasons discussed in the said Judgment.
4. The assessing officers will dispose of the objections in terms of the law laid down by this Court. Thereafter, the assesses who are aggrieved will be at liberty to pursue all the rights and remedies in accordance with law, save and except for the issues which have been concluded in the Judgment.
5. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Diary No.60615/2024 & Diary No.55435/2024:-
The Registry is directed to de-tag the aforesaid petitions and notify them on 25-4-2025.
1. This petition relates to Assessment Year 2016-2017.
2 . Counsels state that in this petition the issue of improper sanction having been obtained has been raised among other grounds, in the petition as well as during the hearing. Counsels state that the issue of improper sanction has been decided by this court in the case of Siemens Financial Services Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (2023) 457 ITR 647 (BOM) wherein the court has held that for Assessment Year 2016-2017, the sanction should have been given under Section 151(ii) and not under Section 151(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and consequently the sanction is invalid. The Court has stated that in view of the invalid sanction, the notice issued itself will be invalid and has to be quashed. We would also add, if the notice has to be quashed, if there is an assessment order passed subsequently, that assessment order having been passed relying on an incorrect sanction, will also have to be quashed. Ordered accordingly.
3. Counsels further state that the findings in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited (supra) will squarely apply to this petition. Therefore, all notices and orders impugned in this petition are quashed and set aside. All consequential notices, assessment order and the consequential orders, if any, are also hereby quashed and set aside.
4. Petition disposed.
5. We clarify that all other grounds could be raised by the parties at appropriate stage in any other proceeding.
6. Registry to take the reply on file for completion of records.
7. Mr. Gandhi states that since the petition is disposed, he is not filing any rejoinder. Mr. Gandhi further states that any allegation made in the reply should not be deemed to have been not controverted.
