OMKARA VINCOM PVT LTD. AND ANR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(1), KOLKATA AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WPO/503/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCO000589202231 January 2022Author: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN5 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in view of the common question of law and similarity of facts, heard all the writ petitions together. The Court noted that the issues involved were covered by previous decisions of the Allahabad High Court in 'Ashok Kumar Agarwal –vs- Union of India', the Rajasthan High Court in 'Bpip Infra Private Limited-vs.- Income Tax Officer', the Delhi High Court in 'Man Mohan Kohli –vs- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax', and this Court's own previous judgments in 'Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India' and 'Bagaria Properites and Investment Private Limited & Anr.'. Consequently, the High Court disposed of all the writ petitions by allowing them. The Court declared Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, rendering them bad in law and void. All impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were quashed. The Assessing Officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act by the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with the required legal formalities.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Shree Kartikeya Vanijya Pvt Ltd and others, are aggrieved by notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They contend that these notices are barred by limitation and that the respondent Income Tax Authority failed to observe the statutory formalities prescribed under Section 148A of the Act, which became applicable from April 1, 2021. The petitioners are seeking to quash these re-assessment notices issued after March 31, 2021. They also challenge the validity of Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to Notifications No. 20 and 38, which extend the applicability of Section 148, Section 149, and Section 151 as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021, to periods beyond March 31, 2021, deeming them ultra vires the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are barred by limitation and whether the statutory formalities under Section 148A were observed by the respondent Income Tax Authority before their issuance, considering the applicability of amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 from April 1, 2021. 2. Whether Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to Notification No. 20 dated March 31, 2021, and Notification No. 38 dated April 27, 2021, are ultra vires the parent legislation, the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, to the extent they extend the applicability of Section 148, Section 149, and Section 151 as they stood on March 31, 2021, to the period beyond March 31, 2021. Assessee's Contentions: The notices are barred by limitation and statutory formalities under Section 148A were not followed. The Explanations extending the old provisions are ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions recorded for the revenue in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Present :- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Md. Nizamuddin W.P.O. No. 397 of 2022 SHREE KARTIKEY VANIJYA PVT LTD Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 1(1), KOLKATA AND ORS. With W.P.O. No. 398 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 416 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 417 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 418 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 420 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 421 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 422 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 423 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 424 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 425 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 426 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 427 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 428 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 429 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 445 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 447 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 448 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 449 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 450 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 451 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 452 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 453 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 454 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 456 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 471 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 473 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 474 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 476 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 477 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 478 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 479 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 480 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 481 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 482 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 483 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 484 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 485 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 486 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 487 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 488 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 489 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 490 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 491 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 492 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 493 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 494 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 495 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 496 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 497 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 498 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 499 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 500 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 501 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 503 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 504 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 505 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 506 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 507 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 508 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 510 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 511 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 512 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 513 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 514 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 515 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 516 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 517 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 518 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 519 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 520 of 2022, 2 W.P.O. No. 521 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 522 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 523 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 524 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 525 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 527 of 2022, W.P.O. No. 529 of 2022 For the Petitioners :- Mr. Anil Kumar Dugar, Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee, Mr. Gobinda Dey, Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Mr. P.K. Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Amani Kayan, Mr. Zubeen Panday, Ms. Aparajita Rao, Ms. Sutapa Mitra, Mr. Sanwal Tibrewal, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Jewrajka, Ms. Pooja Jewrajka, Ms. Jyoti Rauth, Mr. Rites Goel, Mr. Anurag Bagaria, Mr. Saurav Jain, Ms. Swapna Das, Mr. Siddharth Das, Mr. Soumya Kejriwal, Mr. Navin Mittal, Mr. Hemant Tiwari, Advocates For the Respondents :- Mr. P.K. Bhaumick, Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Mr.Asok Bhowmik, Mr. Sunit Kr. Chatterji, Ms. Sucharita Biswas, Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Mr. Tilak Mitra Advocates Dated : 31st January, 2022 MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J. Heard Learned Counsels appearing for the parties. In view of involvement of common question of law and similarity of facts in all these Writ Petitions, with the consent of the parties all these Writ Petitions have been heard together and are being decided by the present

common judgement and order. Common facts and issues involved in all these Writ Petitions as appear on perusal of relevant record and upon considering the submissions of the parties are that the petitioners are aggrieved by the issuance of impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the same are barred by limitation and the respondent Income Tax Authority concerned, before issuing the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, have not observed the statutory formalities under Section 3 148 A of the Income Tax Act as prescribed by the Finance Act, 2021 which are applicable with effect from 1st April, 2021 before issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Act on or after 1st April, 2021. Issues arising in all the present Writ Petitions are purely legal and in all these Writ Petitions the assessees/petitioners have sought relief of quashing of the impugned re-assessment notices issued post 31st March, 2021 by the respondent Income Tax Authority concerned under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, assessees/petitioners have also sought relief by way of a declaration declaring Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notification No. 20 [S.O. 1432 (E) dated 31st March, 2021 and Notification No. 38 [S.O.1703 (E)] dated 27th April, 2021 to the extent that the same extend the applicability of the “provisions of Section 148, Section 149 and Section 151 of the Act, as the case may be, as they stood as on the 31st March, 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021” to the period beyond 31st March, 2021 as ultra vires the parent legislation, viz., The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Relaxation Act, 2020’). At the outset, all the counsels appearing for the parties jointly submitted that the issues involved in these Writ Petitions are covered by the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 30th September, 2021 in the case of ‘Ashok Kumar Agarwal –vs- Union of India through its Revenue Secretary North Block & Ors.’ (Writ Tax No. 524/2021) decided in favour of assessees/petitioners on 30.09.2021 and order of Rajasthan High Court dated 25th November, 2021 in the case of Bpip Infra

4 Private Limited-vs.- Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 (1), Jaipur (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13297/2021) and the order of Delhi High Court 15th December, 2021 in the case of Man Mohan Kohli –vs- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. In (W.P. (C) 6176 of 2021) and judgement and order of India & Ors. In WPA No. 11950 of 2021 and in the case of Bagaria Properites and Investment Private Limited & Anr. In WPO 244 of 2021. In view of judgement and order of this Court dated 17th January, 2022 in the case of Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India & Ors. In WPA No. 11950 of 2021 and in the case of Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. in WPO No. 244 of 2021, all these Writ Petitions herein are disposed of by allowing the same. Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 are declared to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020 and are therefore bad in law and null and void. All the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act are quashed with liberty to the Assessing Officers concerned to initiate fresh re- assessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021 and after making compliance of the formalities as required by the law. Urgent certified photo copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Md. Nizamuddin, J.) TR/

5

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →