T A GAYATHRI V. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/6428/2022

AI Insights

The case involves T.A. Gayathri, the petitioner, challenging the validity of certain notifications and notices issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Income Tax Department. The petitioner argued that the notifications extending the time limit for issuing notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were not in accordance with the Act itself and the 2020 Act. The High Court examined similar cases and precedents and found in favor of the petitioner, leading to the quashing of the impugned notice while allowing for the possibility of fresh reassessment under the amended Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 758451 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2022
• 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; DILIP M
• Assessee Lawyers: K K CHYTHANYA; AJIT GHATIKAR
• Keywords: Notification challenge; Re-assessment proceeding; Ultra Vires; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY W.P. No.6428 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: T.A. GAYATHRI D/O APPAJI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 121, MADILU, 1ST MAIN ROAD 1ST BLOCK, 2ND STAGE NAGARABAVI, BANGALORE-560072. ... PETITIONER (BY MR. K.K. CHYTHANYA, SR. COUNSEL A/W MR. AJIT V. GHATIKAR, ADV., FOR MR. TATA KRISHNA, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3) CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 3. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110002. ... RESPONDENTS 2 (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND A/W MR. DILIP M, ADV.) - - - THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE NOTIFICATION NO.20/2021/F.NO.370142/35/2020-TPL DATED 31/03/2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT 3 AS ULTRA VIRES. THE SAME IS ENCLOSED IN ANNEXURE-A. QUASH AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED BY AN APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR OTHERWISE, THE FOLLOWING IMPUGNED NOTICES ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT 1 UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE IT ACT ISSUED. NOTICE DATED 23/04/2021 FOR THE IMPUGNED AY 2013-14 BEARING NO. ITBA/AST/S/148/2021-22/1032637336(1) ENCLOSED IN ANNEXURE-B1 & 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 Taxes, as ultra vires the provisions of Income Tax Act, 3 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 31.03.2021 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’, Rajasthan High Court in ‘BPIP INFRA (P.) LTD. VS. 4 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 impugned notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed. 5 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 "