ACIT International Tax Vs Linkedin Singapore Pte. Limited (Supreme Court of India)
The dispute arose from reassessment proceedings relating to Assessment Year 2019–2020. The Bombay High Court considered the validity of the approval granted under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for passing an order under Section 148A(d) and issuing a notice under Section 148. The High Court noted that the facts of the case were almost identical to those in Kartik Sureshchandra Gandhi v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax.
The High Court recorded that the approval under Section 151, as reflected in the copy annexed to the affidavit-in-reply, indicated in Box-9 that the proceedings were covered under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, i.e., where the time limit exceeded three years but did not exceed ten years. The assessee contended that, in such a situation, the approval was required to be granted by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas the approval had been granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax.
The Revenue submitted that the entry in Box-9 was generated automatically by the system because the assessment year was 2019–2020 and the approval date was 27 April 2023. The High Court observed that, even if this explanation were accepted, the approving Commissioner should have returned the approval for correction or at least recorded an appropriate handwritten remark. The High Court also observed that the approval form annexed to the petition was unsigned, making it unclear whether it had been signed by the same Commissioner who had granted the approval.
