HIMANSHU KANTILAL BEHDA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 27(1) MUMBAI AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/11183/2022HC BombayHCBM01037991202204 October 2023Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the sanction obtained for Assessment Year 2016-2017 was improper, as it should have been granted under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and not Section 151(i). Consequently, the sanction was deemed invalid. The Court reasoned that an invalid sanction renders the notice issued based upon it invalid and liable to be quashed. Furthermore, any assessment order passed relying on such an incorrect sanction would also have to be quashed. The Court extended this reasoning to Assessment Year 2017-2018, holding that the findings in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited would squarely apply. Therefore, all notices, assessment orders, and consequential orders issued for both assessment years were quashed and set aside. The Court also ordered the quashing of all consequential notices/demands issued under Section 156 or 271 of the Act. Other grounds raised by the parties were left open to be raised at an appropriate stage in other proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Zentest Software Private Limited and others, filed multiple writ petitions before the Bombay High Court concerning Assessment Years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The core issue in these petitions revolved around the validity of the sanction obtained by the revenue authorities for issuing notices under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners argued that the sanction was improperly obtained. The revenue authorities are the respondents, including the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12. The petitions challenged notices, assessment orders, and consequential demands.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the sanction obtained for issuing notices under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was improper, rendering the notices and subsequent orders invalid for Assessment Year 2016-2017? 2. Whether the findings in the case of Siemens Financial Services Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others would apply to Assessment Year 2017-2018, making similar notices and orders invalid? Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the sanction obtained was improper. They relied on the High Court's decision in Siemens Financial Services Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, which held that for Assessment Year 2016-2017, sanction should have been obtained under Section 151(ii) and not Section 151(i), making the sanction invalid. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151,Section 156,Section 271

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (6 matters)

WP No.9954/2022
WP No. 11183/2022
WP No. 11566/2022
WP No. 11860/2022
WP No. 11916/2022
WP No. 12314/2022

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

1/3 945 to 950-WP-9954-2022 @ Ors.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9954 OF 2022 Zentest Software Private Limited ….Petitioner V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12 and Anr. …Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11183 OF 2022 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11566 OF 2022 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11860 OF 2022 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11916 OF 2022 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12314 OF 2022 ---- Mr. Niraj Sheth i/b Mr. Atul K. Jasani for Petitioner in WP No.9954/2022. Ms. Ritika Agarwal a/w Mr. Sandesh Salunkhe i/b Ace Legal for Petitioners in WP No. 11183/2022, WP No. 11566/2022, WP No. 11860/2022, WP No. 11916/2022 and WP No. 12314/2022. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents in WP No.9954/2022, WP No. 11183/ 2022, WP No. 11566/2022, WP No. 11860/2022, WP No. 11916/2022. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Respondent in WP No. 12314/2022. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

DATED : 4th OCTOBER 2023 P.C. : 1. These are Petitions which relate to Assessment Year 2016- 2017 or 2017-2018. Purti Parab PURTI PRASAD PARAB Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2023.10.07 18:03:18 +0530

2/3 945 to 950-WP-9954-2022 @ Ors.doc 2. Counsels state that in all these Petitions 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 v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others1, 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, those assessment orders having been passed relying on an incorrect sanction, will also have to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. 3. In view of the above, all consequential notices/demands issued under Section 156 or 271 of the Act will also have to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. 4. All Petitions disposed. 5. Counsels further state that the findings in Siemens Financial 1 Writ Petition No. 4888 of 2022 Dated 25th August 2023. Purti Parab

3/3 945 to 950-WP-9954-2022 @ Ors.doc Services Private Limited (supra) will squarely apply to the Assessment Year 2017-2018 as well. Therefore, all such notices issued for Assessment Year 2017-2018, the assessment orders and the consequential orders are also quashed and set aside. 6. We clarify that all other grounds could be raised by the parties at appropriate stage in any other proceeding. 7. In view of disposal of Petitions, pending interim application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly (NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Purti Parab

More judgments on Section 151

All 4,323 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →