Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 864 - HC - Income TaxValidity of reopening notices issued u/s 148 and orders passed u/s 148A(d) - authority which sanctioned for issuance of order u/s 148A(d) is the authority u/s 151(i) and not u/s 151(ii) - Section 148 notice which has been issued by respondent No. 2 after the statutory period of four years, is not in the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Act - respondent has also raised a plea of alternative efficacious remedy - HELD THAT:- As regards the issue of alternative remedy, the coordinate Bench of this Court in Arvind Sahdeo Gupta [2023 (8) TMI 522 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has observed that if a jurisdictional issue is raised and the controversy is purely a legal one which does not involve any disputed question of fact, then the writ petition does not deserve to be thrown out threshold. The decision of the Apex Court in Chhabil Dass Agarwal [2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT] was distinguished by observing that the challenge in the said case was to the order of assessment, whereas the challenge before the Court was to the notice under Section 148 of the IT Act against which no statutory remedy is available. In the instant case, the challenge raised by the petitioner, that reopening without prior approval of Commissioner of Income Tax, goes to the root of the matter and hence the petition cannot be thrown out on the ground of alternative remedy. Validity of sanction, in Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (9) TMI 552 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] at the Principal Seat has held that the sanction ought to have been granted under Section 151 (ii) and not under Section 151(i) of the Act. Relying upon the said decision in Crompton Greaves Consumer Electrical Ltd [2023 (8) TMI 1419 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] which related to the assessment year 2016-17, the Division Bench of this Court has quashed order under Section 148 A (d) as well as notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, since the authority which sanctioned issuance of order under Section 148 A (d) was the one under Section 151(i) and not under Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The case in hand is squarely covered by the decision of Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents in support of the said contentions have already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the said decision. Hence, orders passed under Section 148(A)(d) as well as the notices issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act are hereby quashed and set aside.
|