MANJULA PINISHETTY V. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/4645/2022

AI Insights

The petitioner, Manjula Pinishetti, challenged the validity of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and certain notifications related to the extension of time limits for issuing such notices. The petitioner argued that the notifications were ultra vires the Income Tax Act and the Taxation and Other Laws Act, 2020. The court referenced several precedents and found in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned notice and the notifications, while allowing for the possibility of fresh reassessment under the amended Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 695562 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: ASHOK KUAR AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA, BPIP INFRA (P.) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR, MON MOHAN KOHLI VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR., TATA COMMUNICATIONS TRANSFORMATION SERVICES LIMITED, VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1) AND OTHERS
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: SHREEHARI
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2015-16; Income Tax; Notice Quashment; Ultra Vires; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY W.P. No.4645 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: MANJULA PINISHETTY DAUGHTER OF SRI. BODU CHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.60, 1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN DOLLARS COLONY, 4TH PHASE J P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078. ... PETITIONER (BY MR. SHREEHARI, ADV.,) AND: 1. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JCIT (OSD) CIRCLE 6(1)(1) BMTC BUILDING, 100 FT ROAD KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095. 2. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE DIRECTOR DEPT. OF REVENUE UNDER MINISTRY OF FINANCE ROOM NO.46, NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001. 3. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN NORTH BLOCK 2 NEW DELHI-110002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND A/W MR. DILIP M, ADVS.,) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 29/06/2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/148/2021-22/1033843846(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A. ISSUE A SUITABLE WRIT DECLARING THAT THE EXPLANATION A(a)(ii) TO THE NOTIFICATION S.O. 1432(3) (NO.20/2021/F.NO.370142/35/2020- TPL), DATED 31/03/2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT 2 THROUGH THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IS ULTRA VIRES THE TAXATION AND OTHER LAWS (RELAXATION AND AMENDMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS) ACT, 2020 WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-B & ETC., THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner in this writ petition has sought quashment of explanation below Clause (A) in the notification bearing No.20/2021 F.NO.370142/35/2020-TPL dated 31.03.2021 and notification No.38/2021/F.No.370142/35/2020-TPL dated 27.04.2021 issued by Central Board of Direct 3 Taxes, as ultra vires the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1961 Act’ for short) and the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2020 Act’ for short). The petitioner has also prayed for relief that extension of time limit by the 2020 Act does not apply to notices issued under erstwhile Section 148 of the 1961 Act, after 01.04.2021. The petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the notices dated 29.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the 1961 Act for the Assessment year 2016-17. 2. We have heard the learned counsel at length. For the reasons assigned by us in the judgment dated 19.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.22348/2021 and for the reasons assigned by division bench of High Court of Allahabad in ASHOK KUAR AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA’, 4 Rajasthan High Court in ‘BPIP INFRA (P.) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR, Delhi High Court decision in MON MOHAN KOHLI VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. And decision of Bombay High Court in TATA COMMUNICATIONS TRANSFORMATION SERVICES LIMITED, VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1) AND OTHERS, W.P.NO.1334/2021 the explanation below Clause (A) in the notification bearing No.20/2021 F.NO.370142/35/2020-TPL dated 31.03.2021 and notification No.38/2021 F.No.370142/35/2020-TPL dated 27.04.2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes is hereby declared as ultra vires the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The 5 impugned notice dated 29.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed. 3. However, it will be open to the Assessing Officer concerned to initiate fresh re-assessment proceeding in accordance with relevant provisions of the 1961 Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021 after strictly complying with the provisions of the Act. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SS "