KANWAR BIR SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 30(1), DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6479/2022HC DelhiDLHC01015684202225 April 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA8 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, post March 31, 2021, without following the procedure prescribed in the substituted Sections 147 to 151 (w.e.f. April 1, 2021), are invalid. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Mon Mohan Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. The Court found that the Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, are ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court reasoned that the Legislature introduced new provisions (Sections 147 to 151) via the Finance Act, 2021, and any reassessment notices issued under Section 148 after March 31, 2021, had to comply with these substituted sections. The power of reassessment existing prior to March 31, 2021, continued till June 30, 2021, but the procedure changed from April 1, 2021. The Court rejected the Revenue's arguments based on the General Clauses Act, COVID-19, and the nature of the substitution, stating that the Executive cannot undermine Parliamentary supremacy. Consequently, the impugned reassessment notices were quashed, and the writ petitions were allowed. The Revenue was granted liberty to take further steps if permitted by law, and petitioners were given liberty to pursue remedies if aggrieved by such steps.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, including Trinayani Realestates Private Limited, Kanwar Bir Singh, Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Sajan Kumar Agarwal, Shri Giriraj Steels Pvt Ltd, Picasa Facility Management, Mahashian Di Hatti Pvt. Limited, Deepak Sood, and Sakshi Property Consultants Pvt. Ltd, have filed writ petitions challenging reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue is the respondent. The core issue revolves around the validity of these notices issued post March 31, 2021, without adhering to the procedure prescribed in the substituted Sections 147 to 151, which became effective from April 1, 2021. The petitions are being disposed of in light of a prior judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mon Mohan Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

What were the issues?

1. Whether reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, post March 31, 2021, without following the procedure prescribed in the substituted Sections 147 to 151 (effective from April 1, 2021) are valid? Assessee's Contentions (implied from the judgment's reliance on Mon Mohan Kohli): The substituted provisions of Sections 147 to 151, introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, must be followed for any reassessment proceedings initiated after March 31, 2021. The Explanations in the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which sought to extend the old procedure, are ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, and beyond the delegated power of the government. The Revenue cannot rely on the General Clauses Act or COVID-19 to justify the use of the old procedure. Revenue's Contentions (as addressed in the cited judgment): The Revenue argued that the power of reassessment existed till June 30, 2021, and that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act saves notices issued under Section 148 post March 31, 2021. They also contended that the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, is not applicable to past Assessment Years as it is substantial in nature, and that the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the extension of the old procedure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (3 matters)

W.P.(C) 6470/2022
W.P.(C) 6479/2022
W.P.(C) 6481/2022

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

$~66 to 68, 70 to 72, 74, 75, 77, 81 to 84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 66 + W.P.(C) 6470/2022 & CM APPL. 19644/2022, CM APPL.

19645/2022

TRINAYANI REALESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rohit Bansal, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(3), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.

67 + W.P.(C) 6479/2022 & CM APPL. 19658/2022, CM APPL.

19659/2022

KANWAR BIR SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 30(1), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate.

68 + W.P.(C) 6481/2022 & CM APPL. 19662/2022, CM APPL.

19663/2022

VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Advocate.

versus

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/06/2026 at 18:35:23

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(1)

DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. 70 + W.P.(C) 6483/2022 & CM APPL. 19665/2022, CM APPL.

19666/2022

SAJAN KUMAR AGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain with Ms. Akshita

Goyal and Mr. Shubham Gupta,

Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate. 71 + W.P.(C) 6484/2022 & CM APPL. 19667/2022, CM APPL.

19668/2022

SHRI GIRIRAJ STEELS PVT LTD

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Shafiq Khan, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23 3 & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadian, Advocates for Revenue.

Mr. Rohit Puri, Advocate for

respondent No.4.

72 + W.P.(C) 6485/2022 & CM APPL. 19669/2022, CM APPL.

19670/2022

SAJAN KUMAR AGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain with Ms. Akshita

Goyal and Mr. Shubham Gupta,

Advocates. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/06/2026 at 18:35:23

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 47(1) DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.

74 + W.P.(C) 6487/2022 & CM APPL. 19673/2022

PICASA FACILITY MANAGEMENTG

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rajat Vaishnav, Advocate.

versus

THE ITO, WARD 36(1), DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadian, Advocates. 75 + W.P.(C) 6488/2022 & CM APPL. 19674/2022, CM APPL. 19675/2022

SAJAN KUMAR AGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain with Ms. Akshita

Goyal and Mr. Shubham Gupta,

Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate. 77 + W.P.(C) 6490/2022 & CM APPL. 19677/2022, CM APPL.

19678/2022, CM APPL. 19679/2022

MAHASHIAN DI HATTI PVT. LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Shreya Jain with Mr. Gaurav

Tanwar, Advocates

versus This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/06/2026 at 18:35:23

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate.

81 + W.P.(C) 6494/2022 & CM APPL. 19686/2022, CM APPL.

19687/2022

DEEPAK SOOD

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 72(1), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. 82 + W.P.(C) 6495/2022 & CM APPL. 19688/2022, CM APPL.

19689/2022

SAJAN KUMAR AGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain with Ms. Akshita

Goyal and Mr. Shubham Gupta,

Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate. 83 + W.P.(C) 6496/2022 & CM APPL. 19690/2022, CM APPL.

19691/2022

SAKSHI PROPERTY CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain with Ms. Akshita

Goyal and Mr. Shubham Gupta,

Advocates.

versus

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/06/2026 at 18:35:23

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 22(2),

DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Sr.

Standing Counsel with Mr. Tushar

Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and

Mr. Samarth Chaudhari, Advocates. 84 + W.P.(C) 6497/2022 & CM APPL. 19692/2022, CM APPL.

19693/2022, CM APPL. 19694/2022

MAHASHIAN DI HATTI PVT. LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Shreya Jain with Mr. Gaurav

Tanwar, Advocates

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

25.04.2022 O R D E R

1.

Learned counsel for the parties admit that as the impugned notices in the present matters have been issued post 31st March, 2021 without following the procedure prescribed in the substituted Sections 147 to 151 w.e.f. 01st April, 2021, the present matters are covered by the judgment dated 15th 2. The conclusion reached by this Court in Mon Mohan Kohli (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- December, 2021 passed by this Court in the case of Mon Mohan Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., W.P.(C) No.6176/2021. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/06/2026 at 18:35:23

“CONCLUSION 97. This Court is of the view that as the Legislature has introduced the new provisions, Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by way of the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1st April, 2021 and as the said Section 147 is not even mentioned in the impugned Explanations, the reassessment notices relating to any Assessment Year issued under Section 148 after 31st

March, 2021 had to comply with the substituted Sections. 98. It is clarified that the power of reassessment that existed prior to 31st March, 2021 continued to exist till the extended period i.e. till 30th June, 2021; however, the Finance Act, 2021 has merely changed the procedure to be followed prior to issuance of notice with effect from 1st

April, 2021. 99. This Court is of the opinion that Section 3(1) of Relaxation Act empowers the Government/Executive to extend only the time limits and it does not delegate the power to legislate on provisions to be followed for initiation of reassessment proceedings. In fact, the Relaxation Act does not give power to Government to extend the erstwhile Sections 147 to 151 beyond 31st March, 2021 and/or defer the operation of substituted provisions enacted by the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the impugned Explanations in the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th

April, 2021 are not conditional legislation and are beyond the power delegated to the Government as well as ultra vires the parent statute i.e. the Relaxation Act. Accordingly, this Court is respectfully not in agreement with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), but with the views of the Allahabad High Court and Rajasthan High Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra) and Bpip Infra Private Limited (supra) respectively. 100. The submission of the Revenue that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act saves notices issued under Section 148 post 31st March, 2021 is untenable in law, as in the present case, the repeal is followed by a fresh legislation on the same subject and the new Act manifests an intention to destroy the old procedure. Consequently, if the Legislature has permitted reassessment to be made in a particular manner, it can only be in this manner, or not at all. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/06/2026 at 18:35:23

101.

The argument of the respondents that the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021 is not applicable to past Assessment Years, as it is substantial in nature is contradicted by Respondents’ own Circular 549 of 1989 and its own submission that from 1st

July, 2021, the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021 will be applicable. 102. Revenue cannot rely on Covid-19 for contending that the new provisions Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not operate during the period 1st April, 2021 to 30th

June, 2021 as Parliament was fully aware of Covid-19 Pandemic when it passed the Finance Act, 2021. Also, the arguments of the respondents qua non-obstante clause in Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, ‘legal fiction’ and ‘stop the clock provision’ are contrary to facts and untenable in law. 103. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the Executive/Respondents/Revenue cannot use the administrative power to issue Notifications under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020 to undermine the expression of Parliamentary supremacy in the form of an Act of Parliament, namely, the Finance Act, 2021. This Court is also of the opinion that the Executive/Respondents/Revenue cannot frustrate the purpose of substituted statutory provisions, like Sections 147 to 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the present instance, by emptying it of content or impeding or postponing their effectual operation.”

3.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th 4. Consequently, the impugned reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are quashed and the present writ petitions are allowed. If the law permits the respondents/revenue to take further steps in the matter, they shall be at liberty to do so. Needless to state April, 2021 are declared to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020 and are therefore bad in law and null and void. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/06/2026 at 18:35:23

that if and when such steps are taken and if the petitioners have a grievance, they shall be at liberty to take their remedies in accordance with law.

MANMOHAN, J

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J APRIL 25, 2022 st This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/06/2026 at 18:35:23

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →