9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Considering the delay of 4 days in filing of the CO by the Assessee is miniscule, bonafide and unintentional as claimed by the Assessee is condoned. 3. In this case, the Assessee had declared her total income at Rs. 8,24,900/- by filing her return of income on dated 31.07.2017. No regular assessment was done u/s 143(3) of the Act. The case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing a notice dated 11.06.2021 u/s 148 of the Act, in response to which the Assessee filed her return of income on dated 23.11.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 8,24,900/-. Subsequently, there was change ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority for granting the approval for issuing such notice would be the authority as specified in sub clause (ii) of section 151 of the Act, but not Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai from whom approval has been taken and therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and assessment order passed in pursuance to such notice, would be un-sustainable being void ab initio. 6.1 The Ld. D.R. on the contrary has claimed that the time of three years as prescribed in the sub clause (i) of section 151 of the Act, shall be computed after taking into account the period of limitation as excluded by 3rd or 4th or 5th or 6th proviso to sub section (i) of section 149 of the Act and hence the contention of the Assessee is un-tenable. 6.2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of the relevant assessment year and therefore as per sub clause (ii) of section 151 of the Act, the specified authority for granting the approval for issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act, would have been, either Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director or where there is no such post then the Chief Commissioner or Director General, for granting the sanction for issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act, but not the Ld. PCIT-2, Mumbai who has granted the approval in this case and/or authority specified under sub clause (i) of section 151 of the Act. Relevant provisions of law, which are very much clear and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vodafone India Idea Ltd. has also clearly held that proviso to section 151 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
