Sukhdev International Private Limited, Through The Director, Hitendra Goyal V. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi and The Deputy Commissioner, Central Circle-2, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur

CW/16814/2021

AI Insights

The case involves multiple petitioners who challenged the notices of re-assessment issued by the Income Tax Department. These notices were issued for assessment periods prior to April 1, 2021, but were issued after this date, following the amendment of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2021. The petitioners argued that the new procedural requirements under Section 148A, which were intended to provide a fairer process for re-assessment, were not followed. The court examined the legislative changes and the specific provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, and found that the notices did not adhere to the required legal framework, leading to their quashing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802411 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sudesh Taneja vs. Income Tax Officer and others [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KAMAL BISSA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV JOHARI
• Keywords: Income Tax; Notices; Re-assessment; Validity
• Section: 148; 149; 148A

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 652/2022 Sukhdev International Private Limited, Through The Director, Hitendra Goyal S/o Shri Shyamlalji Goyal, Aged 50 Years, B-94, Krishna Nagar, Pali Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Circle-2, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10258/2021 LRs Of Anil Poonia, Through Legal Heir Smt. Saroj Kumari (Wife) Resident Of Village Chandgothi, Tehsil Sadupur, Distt. Churu - 331023 (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer, Churu, Ward-1, Behind Collectorate, Shekhawat Colony, Churu - 331001 (Rajasthan). ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11940/2021 Ajay Kumar Agarwal S/o Jagdish Lal Agarwal, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Hindustan Ceramic Distributors, Outside Delhi Gate, Dewali (Rural), Udaipur ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, C-2, Udaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16038/2021 Ashok Jain S/o Sh. Kanhaya Lal Jain, Aged About 63 Years, 10, Kumar Complex, C/o Dial And Travel, D Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner (2 of 22) [CW-652/2022] Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (1), Income Tax Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota 'c' Road, Jodhpur - 342 010. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16073/2021 M/s. Janki Corp Limited, Through The Director, Harish Sharma S/ o Ashok Kumar Sharma, Mandpiya Chouraha, Chittor Road, Bhilwara 311001 (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Department, Kawa Khera Chourha, Shashtri Nagar, Bhilwara. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16085/2021 M/s. Janki Corp Ltd., Through The Director, Harish Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, Mandpiya Churaha, Bhilwara 311001 (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Income Tax Department, Kawa Khera Chourha, Shashtri Nagar, Bhilwara. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16104/2021 M/s. Janki Corp Limited, Through The Director, Harish Sharma S/ o Ashok Kumar Sharma, Mandpiya Chouraha, Chittor Road, Bhilwara 311001 (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of (3 of 22) [CW-652/2022] Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Department, Kawa Khera Chourha, Shashtri Nagar, Bhilwara. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16331/2021 Anncarol Simon W/o Angelo Mark Simon, Aged About 44 Years, Simon Bungalow, Jhalamand, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (1), Income Tax Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur - 342 010. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16355/2021 Angelo Mark Simon S/o Sh. Anthony Milton Simon, Aged About 44 Years, Simon Bungalow, Jhalamand, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Income Tax Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur - 342010. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16743/2021 M/s Saileela Processors Private Ltd., Village Gudda, Mandal, Bhilwara - 311405 (Raj.) Through Director Nand Lal Jalan S/o Radha Kishan Jalan Age 55 Years ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Department, Kawa Khera Chouraha, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.) (4 of 22) [CW-652/2022] ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16754/2021 Tulsi Devi Bhootra W/o Late Shri Om Prakash Bhootra, Aged About 58 Years, R/o. Near Maheshwari Nyati Nohra, Masuria Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16760/2021 Ganga Steels, Through The Partner, Jitendra Jain S/o Babulalji Jain, Aged About 45 Years, A-2A38, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17649/2021 Prakash Soni S/o Gajraj Soni, Aged About 29 Years, Bhakraniyo Ka Mohalla, Janpath Marg, Merta City, Nagaur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Office, Ward - 1, Income Tax Department, Nagour, Rajasthan - 341001 ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17667/2021 Kaushaliya Devi Soni W/o Rohit Kumar Soni, Aged About 49 Years, Bhakraniyo Ka Bass Sunaro Ka Bass, Merta City, Nagaur, (5 of 22) [CW-652/2022] Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Income Tax Department, Nagaur, Rajasthan - 341001. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17714/2021 Bhoodhara Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Through The Director, Sanjay Sancheti S/o Gihari Lal Sancheti, Aged 47 Years 4 Mahaviram, New Mahavir Nagar H M Sec, Near Chirag Complex, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Income Tax Department, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313001. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17796/2021 Barju Devi Singariya W/o Late Shri Pratap Ram Singariya, Singariya, Aged About 76 Years, Singariya Ka Bass, Sojat, Pali (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Income Tax Department, Mandia Road, Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17805/2021 Hari Om Developers, Through The Partner, Mahendra Kumar Soni S/o Prabhulalji Son, Sabji Mandi, Sheoganj, Sirohi (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus (6 of 22) [CW-652/2022] 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Rajiv Nagar Colony, Sirohi. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17806/2021 Mahendra Kumar Soni S/o Prabhulal Soni, Aged About 46 Years, Near Gajanandji Mandir, Sheoganj, Sirohi (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Rajiv Nagar Colony, Sirohi. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17816/2021 Tara Devi Soni W/o Prabhu Ram Soni, Aged About 67 Years, Chhawani, Sheoganj, Sirohi (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Rajiv Nagar Colony, Sirohi. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17823/2021 Prabhu Ram Soni S/o Tulsi Ram Soni, Aged About 70 Years, Agresen Marg, Sheoganj, Sirohi (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Rajiv Nagar Colony, Sirohi. ----Respondents (7 of 22) [CW-652/2022] D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17834/2021 Jinal Soni W/o Mahendra Kumar Soni, Aged About 44 Years, Chhawani, Sheoganj, Sirohi (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Rajiv Nagar Colony, Sirohi. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17885/2021 Meenakshi Soni W/o Bharat Kumari Soni, Aged About 34 Years, 4, Nai Basti Bhuti, Ahore, Jalore (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Department, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17892/2021 Bharat Kumar Soni S/o Pukhrajji Soni, Aged About 35 Years, 4, Nai Basti Bhuti, Ahore, Jalore (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Department, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18112/2021 Omprakash Agarwal S/o Tarachand Agarwal, Aged About 60 Years, 6, Jai Shiv Chowk, Makrana 341505 (Raj.) District Nagaur. ----Petitioner Versus (8 of 22) [CW-652/2022] 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward-1, Nagaur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 468/2022 Puneet Pahwa Huf, Through Karta, Puneet Pahwa S/o Subhash Pahwa, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 403, 403 Golden Palm, B-69, Yash Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302 001 (Raj.) At Present R/o 104, Vrindavan Vihar, 1St Floor, Gagan Path, Sri Ganganagar - 335 001 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer (Ito), Ward 7(1), Income Tax Department, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 655/2022 Ritu Logistics, Through The Partner, Hitendra Goyal S/o Shri Shyamlalji Goyal, Aged 50 Years, A-56, Krishna Nagar, New Pali Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Commissioner/dy. Commissioner, Central Circle-2, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 660/2022 Ritu Logistics, Through The Partner, Hitendra Goyal Aged 50 Years, S/o Shri Shyamlalji Goyal A-56, Krishna Nagar, New Pali Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Commissioner / Dy. Commissioner, Central (9 of 22) [CW-652/2022] Circle - 2, Income Tax Department, Paota C- Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 671/2022 Ritu International Private Limited, Through The Director, Hitendra Goyal Aged 50 Years, S/o Shri Shyamlalji Goyal B-94, Krishna Nagar, Pali Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Circle - 2, Income Tax Department, Paota C- Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 672/2022 Ritu Logistics, Through The Partner, Hitendra Goyal S/o Shri Shyamlalji Goyal, Aged 50 Years, A-56, Krishna Nagar, New Pali Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Commissioner/dy. Commissioner, Central Circle-2, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 675/2022 Ritu Logistics, Through The Partner, Hitendra Goyal S/o Shri Shyamlalji Goyal, Aged 50 Years, A-56, Krishna Nagar, New Pali Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Commissioner/dy. Commissioner, Central Circle-2, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents (10 of 22) [CW-652/2022] D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17914/2021 M/s. Himalaya Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., 202, Poonam Complex, 2nd Floor, 179, 3Rd C Road Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Through The Director Bhoor Chand Jirawala, Aged About 68 Years R/o A - 120, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, C-3, Income Tax Department, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17917/2021 Mahaveer Chand Parakh S/o Jawarilal Pararkh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 116, Udaipuriya Bazar, Pali Marwar (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Income Tax Officer, W-1, Mandia Road, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1544/2022 Vyas Colonisers Private Ltd., Through Director Manish Vyas S/o Shri Gordhan Das Ji Vyas, By Caste Brahmin, Aged About 56 Years, Teesra Prahar Bhawan, 1St A Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Income Tax (11 of 22) [CW-652/2022] Department, Paota C-Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17850/2021 Manju Devi Goyal D/o Shri Naryan Das, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Plot No. 55, Opp Khansa Garage, Lal Laj Pat Colony Chopasani Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Jodhpur, Aykar Bhawan, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16812/2021 Sachin Lodha S/o Late Shri Rikhab Raj, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. B-60 Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward-3 (1), Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16814/2021 Rahul Chhabra (HUF) S/o Shri Kanwarilal Chhabra, Aged About 42 Years, B-218, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.) 311001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, (12 of 22) [CW-652/2022] Ward-1, Kawa Khera Chourha, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16816/2021 M/s Silver Fab Suitings Pvt, 9, New Cloth Market, Pur Road, Bhilwara, Through The Director Shri Sushil Kumar Chrodia S/o Shri Sampat Lal Chordia Aged 41 Years. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Department, Kawa Khera Chourha, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16828/2021 M/s Lakhpat Trading And Industrys Private Limited, Through Director - Shri Dalpat Bhandari, S/o. Late Shri Hastimal Bhandari, Aged About 63 Years, G-72/73 79/80, 1St Phase Boranada, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16831/2021 M/s. Saraansh Suitings Private Limited, 10, New Cloth Market, Pur Road, Bilwara (Raj.) Through The Director Shri Sandeep Kumar Chordia S/o Shri Sampat Lal Chordia Aged 38 Years ----Petitioner (13 of 22) [CW-652/2022] Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Department, Kawa Khera Chouraha, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16871/2021 M/s Navkar Alloy Pvt. Ltd., F-427, M.i.a., 2Nd Phase, Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.) Through Its Director Shri Jayantilal Jain S/o Shri Champalal Jain, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 37, Narpat Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward-1(1), Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16879/2021 M/s. Vinod Commodities Ltd., 401, Ligh Vinod Towers, Main Chopasani Road, Jodhpur Through Its Director Vinod Singhvi S/o Umaid Mal Singhvi, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 3, Pal Link Road, Near K.n. Hospital, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16881/2021 M/s. Vinod Commodities Ltd., 401, Ligh Vinod Towers, (14 of 22) [CW-652/2022] Main Chopasani Road, Jodhpur Through Its Director Vinod Singhvi S/o Umaid Mal Singhvi, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 3, Pal Link Road, Near K.n. Hospital, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16952/2021 M/s Arihant Sharecom Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director Shri Gautam Jain S/o Late Shri Gyanchand Jain, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 441 A, Anant Ram Ji Ki Bagehci, 2Nd C Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward-3 (1) Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17289/2021 M/s. Navkar Alloy Pvt. Ltd., F-427, M.i.a., 2Nd Phase, Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.) Through Its Director Shri Jayantilal Jain, S/o Shri Champalal Jain, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 37, Narpat Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward-1, Jodhpur (Raj.) (15 of 22) [CW-652/2022] ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17707/2021 Nawal Kishore S/o Shri Lakshman Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o. Bhoodha Tala, Bhiyad District- Barmer (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle (Intl- Tax) Jaipur, (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17724/2021 Vinod Purohit S/o Late Shri Devi Singh Purohit, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. 112, Abhaygarh Shceme, Opp Central School, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17758/2021 Vinod Purohit S/o Late Shri Devi Singh Purohit, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. 112, Abhaygarh Scheme, Opp Central School, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central (16 of 22) [CW-652/2022] Circle-1, Jodhpur, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17887/2021 Prakash Jain S/o Shri Ambalal Jain, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 1, Udaipur Road, Fateh Nagar, Udaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Circle-2, Udaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s), through V.C. : Mr. Sanjeev Johari, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Shubhankar Johari, Mr. A.A. Bhansali, Mr. Abhishek Mehta, Mr. Varda Ram Choudhary, Mr. Anjay Kothari, Mr. Mukesh Gurjar, Ms. Twinkle Purohit for Mr. Sanjeet Purohit For Respondent(s), through V.C. : Mr. Kamal Kishore Bissa HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order 28/01/2022 These writ petitions involve identical issues. The petitioners assessees have challenged respective notices of re-assessment issued by the assessing officer. All these notices are issued after 01.04.2021 and pertain to the assessment period prior to the said date. According to the petitioners, these notices are issued under (17 of 22) [CW-652/2022] the provisions for re-assessment contained in the Income Tax Act, 1961, which prevailed period prior to 01.04.2021, in particular, in none of these cases the procedure laid down under Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, which was inserted with effect from 01.04.2021 by the Finance Act, has been followed. The petitioners have, therefore, challenged the validity of these notices. The revenue does not dispute these factual averments of the petitioners. In a judgment delivered yesterday i.e. 27.01.2022 in the case of Sudesh Taneja vs. Income Tax Officer and others [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022], the Division Bench in the identical circumstances quashed the impugned notices of re- assessment making following observations: “37. In this context we have perused the provisions of reassessment contained in the Finance Act, 2021. We have noticed earlier the major departure that the new scheme of reassessment has made under these provisions. The time limits for issuing notice for reassessment have been changed. The concept of income chargeable to tax escaping assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly or fully all material facts is no longer relevant. Elaborate provisions are made under Section 148A of the Act enabling the Assessing Officer to make enquiry with respect to material suggesting that income has escaped assessment, issuance of notice to the assessee calling upon why notice under Section 148 should not be issued and passing an order considering the material available on record including response of the assessee if made while deciding whether the case is fit for issuing notice under Section 148. There is absolutely no indication in all these provisions which would suggest that the legislature intended that the new scheme of reopening of assessments would be applicable only to the period post 01.04.2021. In absence of any such indication all notices which were issued after 01.04.2021 had to be in accordance with such provisions. To reiterate, we find no indication whatsoever in the scheme of statutory (18 of 22) [CW-652/2022] provisions suggesting that the past provisions would continue to apply even after the substitution for the assessment periods prior to substitution. In fact there are strong indications to the contrary. We may recall, that time limits for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act have been modified under substituted Section 149. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 reduces such period to three years instead of originally prevailing four years under normal circumstances. Clause (b) extends the upper limit of six years previously prevailing to ten years in cases where income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to 50 lacs or more. Sub-section (1) of Section 149 thus contracts as well as expands the time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 depending on the question whether the case falls under clause (a) or clause (b). In this context the first proviso to Section 149(1) provides that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021 if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. As per this proviso thus no notice under Section 148 would be issued for the past assessment years by resorting to the larger period of limitation prescribed in newly substituted clause (b) of Section 149(1). This would indicate that the notice that would be issued after 01.04.2021 would be in terms of the substituted Section 149(1) but without breaching the upper time limit provided in the original Section 149(1) which stood substituted. This aspect has also been highlighted in the memorandum explaining the proposed provisions in the Finance Bill. If according to the revenue for past period provisions of section 149 before amendment were applicable, this first proviso to section 149(1) was wholly unnecessary. Looked from both angles, namely, no indication of surviving the past provisions after the substitution and in fact an active indication to the contrary, inescapable conclusion that we must arrive at is that for any action of issuance of notice under Section 148 after 01.04.2021 the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021 would apply. Mere extension of time limits for issuing notice under section 148 would not change this position that obtains in law. Under no circumstances the extended period available in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 which we may recall now stands at 10 years instead of 6 years previously available with the revenue, can be pressed in service for reopening assessments for the past period. This flows from the plain meaning of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 149. In plain (19 of 22) [CW-652/2022] terms a notice which had become time barred prior to 01.04.2021 as per the then prevailing provisions, would not be revived by virtue of the application of Section 149(1)(b) effective from 01.04.2021. All the notices issued in the present cases are after 01.04.2021 and have been issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148A of the Act and are therefore invalid. 38. The second question framed by us arises in this context. Would the explanation contained in both the notifications of CBDT dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 save the situation for the revenue? 39. It is well settled that there is presumption of constitutionality of a statute (refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in case of The State of Jammu & Kashmir, Vs. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., reported in AIR 1974 SC 1). The said principle of presumption of constitutionality also applies to piece of delegated legislation. In case of St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional Director, National Council For Teachers Education and Another, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 321, it was observed that it is well settled in considering the vires of subordinate legislation one should start with the presumption that it is intra vires and if it is open to two constructions, one of which would make it valid and other invalid, the courts must adopt that construction which makes it valid. However it is equally well settled that the subordinate legislation does not enjoy same level of immunity as the law framed by the Parliament or the State Legislature. The law framed by the Parliament or the State Legislature can be challenged only on the grounds of being beyond the legislative competence or being contrary to the fundamental rights or any other constitutional provisions. Third ground of challenge which is now recognized in the judgment in case of Shayara Bano Vs Union of India reported in 2017 9 SCC 1 is of legislation being manifestly arbitrary. A subordinate legislation can be challenged on all these grounds as well as on the grounds that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made or that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or it is contrary to some of the statutes applicable on the subject matter. In case of J.K. Industries Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2007) 13 SCC 673, it was observed as under:- “63. At the outset, we may state that on account of globalization and socio-economic problems (including income disparities in our economy) the power of Delegation has become a constituent element of legislative power as a whole. However, as held in the case of Indian (20 of 22) [CW-652/2022] Express Newspaper v. Union of India reported in (1985) 1 SCC 641 at page 689, subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent Legislature. Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition, it may also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned on the ground that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or that it is contrary to some other statute applicable on the same subject matter. Therefore, it has to yield to plenary legislation. It can also be questioned on the ground that it is manifestly arbitrary and unjust. That, any inquiry into its vires must be confined to the grounds on which plenary legislation may be questioned, to the grounds that it is contrary to the statute under which it is made, to the grounds that it is contrary to other statutory provisions or on the ground that it is so patently arbitrary that it cannot be said to be inconformity with the statute. It can also be challenged on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.” 40. With this background we may revert to the Relaxation Act, 2020 and the two notifications issued by the CBDT. We may recall, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020 while extending the time limits for taking action and making compliances in the specified Acts upto 31.12.2020 the power was given to the Central Government to extend the time further by issuing a notification. This was the only power vested in the Central Government. As a piece of delegated legislation the notifications issued in exercise of such powers, had to be within the confines of such powers. In plain terms under sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020 the Government of India was authorized to extend the time limits by issuing notifications in this regard. Issuing any explanation touching the provisions of the Income Tax Act was not part of this delegation at all. The CBDT while issuing the notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 when introduced an explanation which provided by way of clarification that for the purposes of issuance of notice under Section 148 as per the time limits specified in Section 149 or 151, the provisions as they stood as on 31.03.2021 before commencement of the Finance Act, 2021 shall apply, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation (21 of 22) [CW-652/2022] could not have travelled beyond the powers vested in the Government of India by the parent Act. Even otherwise it is extremely doubtful whether the explanation in the guise of clarification can change the very basis of the statutory provisions. If the plain meaning of the statutory provision and its interpretation is clear, by adopting a position different in an explanation and describing it to be clarificatory, the subordinate legislature cannot be permitted to amend the provisions of the parent Act. Accordingly, these explanations are unconstitutional and declared as invalid. 41. As noted, two Division Benches of Allahabad and Delhi High Courts have taken similar view. Two learned Single Judges of Calcutta and this High Court have followed this trend. Independently also we hold the same beliefs. As noted earlier we are conscious that Single Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra) has taken a different view. The view of the High Court was that the impugned notices were valid since by virtue of notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 the application of Section 148 which was originally existing before amendment was deferred. It was further observed as under:- “Reading of the aforesaid notification would show that it was issued in exercise of power conferred under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and time for issuance of notice under Section 148, the end date was initially extended uptill on 30th day of April 2021 and subsequently again by notification dated 27th April, 2021 the time limit of 30th day of April 2021 was further extended up till 30th day of June, 2021. By effect of such notification, the individual identity of Section 148, which was prevailing prior to amendment and insertion of section 148A was insulated and saved uptill 30.06.2021.” With respect, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept this analysis of the situation. In our understanding by virtue of notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 01.04.2021 issued by CBDT substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021 were not deferred nor could they have been deferred. The date of such amendments coming into effect remained 01.04.2021. 42. In the result we find that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law. The same are quashed and set aside. The learned Single Judge committed no error in quashing these notices. All the writ petitions are allowed. Appeals of (22 of 22) [CW-652/2022] the revenue are dismissed. Pending applications if any stand disposed of.” Under the circumstances, without recording separate reasons, all respective impugned notices challenged in these petitions are quashed. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. (MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ 93to122,1,2,8,c/1to15-MohitTak/- "