SHREE SHAKTI WELD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3), DELHI

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147, Section 148, Section 151

W.P.(C)/5430/2022HC DelhiDLHC01012847202201 April 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA15 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after March 31, 2021, must comply with the substituted Sections 147 to 151, as introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found that the Legislature had introduced new provisions with effect from April 1, 2021, and Section 147 was not mentioned in the impugned explanations. The Court clarified that while the power of reassessment existed prior to March 31, 2021, and continued till June 30, 2021, the Finance Act, 2021, mandated a new procedure from April 1, 2021. The Court ruled that the executive/revenue could not use administrative power under the Relaxation Act to undermine parliamentary supremacy or frustrate the purpose of substituted statutory provisions. Consequently, Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were declared ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, and thus void. 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.

What were the facts?

The judgment consolidated multiple writ petitions filed by various assessees challenging reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core issue was that these notices were issued after March 31, 2021, but allegedly without adhering to the procedure prescribed in the substituted Sections 147 to 151, which became effective from April 1, 2021. The revenue contended that certain notifications and explanations allowed for the continuation of the old procedure or extended the applicability of old provisions. The assessees argued that the new procedure mandated by the Finance Act, 2021, must be followed for any reassessment proceedings initiated after April 1, 2021.

What were the issues?

1. Whether reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, post March 31, 2021, are required to comply with the substituted Sections 147 to 151 of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessees argued that the Finance Act, 2021, introduced new procedures for reassessment from April 1, 2021, and any notice issued thereafter must comply with these new provisions. They relied on the judgment in Mon Mohan Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. to support their claim that the old procedure was no longer applicable. They further argued that the executive notifications extending the old procedure were ultra vires the Relaxation Act and the parent statute. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the power of reassessment that existed prior to March 31, 2021, continued to exist till June 30, 2021, and that the Finance Act, 2021, merely changed the procedure. They also argued that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act saved notices issued under Section 148 post March 31, 2021, and that the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to past assessment years. They also sought to rely on the Covid-19 pandemic to justify the operation of old provisions.

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) 5410/2022

W.P.(C) 5413/2022

W.P.(C) 5414/2022

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

$~11, 14, 15, 17, 19 to 22, 24, 25, 28 to 31, 34 to 41, 43 to 49 & 52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 11 + W.P.(C) 5410/2022 & CM APPL.16188/2022

SHIBA JAIN

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Piyush Goel, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Pavan Narang, Advocate for

UOI. 14 + W.P.(C) 5413/2022 & CM APPL.16196/2022, CM APPL.16197/2022

VIDUSHI AGARWAL ..... Petitioner

Through Ms. Surbhi Chandra, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Zoheb Khan, Jr.

Standing Counsel and Mr. Shray

Nargotra, Advocates. 15 + W.P.(C) 5414/2022 & CM APPL.16198/2022

TILAK RAJ BEHAL

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Amit Kaushik with Mr. Bhateri

and Mr. Rishab Jain, 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 17/06/2026 at 06:15:57

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 58(3), DELHI ..... Respondent

Through 17 + W.P.(C) 5416/2022 & CM APPL.16201/2022, CM APPL.16202/2022

KAJAL GOEL

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Amol Sinha, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 29(1), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent

Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra with

Mr. Shaildendra Singh 19 + W.P.(C) 5421/2022 & CM APPL.16210/2022, CM APPL.16211/2022

EMERGING CAPITAL ADVISORS LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through Ms. Mitika Choudhary, Advocate.

versus

OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(1) & ORS. ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Vipul Agrawal and

Mr. Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel. 20 + W.P.(C) 5425/2022 & CM APPL.16214/2022, CM APPL.16215/2022

NEEVISH REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Gaurav Jain with Ms. Akshita

Goyal, 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 17/06/2026 at 06:15:57

versus

INCOME TAX WARD 18(1), DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate. 21 + W.P.(C) 5426/2022 & CM APPL.16216/2022, CM

APPL.16217/2022, CM APPL.16218/2022

PAWAN KUMAR GARG

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Hemant Shah with Ms. Niddi

Chaudhary, Mr. Deokant Tripathi,

Mr. Akshay Rana and Mr. Saurabh

Pal, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH, SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF

FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through Ms. Ridhima Gaur, Advocate for

UOI.

Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra with

Mr. Shaildendra Singh for Revenue. 22 + W.P.(C) 5427/2022 & CM APPL.16219/2022, CM APPL.16220/2022

BAS ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 4-2 DELHI ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Zoheb Khan, Jr.

Standing Counsel and Mr. Shray

Nargotra, Advocates.

24 + W.P.(C) 5430/2022 & CM APPL.16224/2022

SHREE SHAKTI WELD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Amit Kaushik with Mr. Bhateri

and Mr. Rishab Jain, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3), DELHI ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadiyan, Advocates. 25 + W.P.(C) 5431/2022 & CM APPL.16227/2022, CM APPL.16228/2022

AMBIENCE PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. N.P. Sahni with Mr. Naveen

Kumar, Advocates.

versus

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 20, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Zoheb Khan, Jr.

Standing Counsel and Mr. Shray

Nargotra, Advocates. 28 + W.P.(C) 5437/2022 & CM APPL.16233/2022, CM

APPL.16234/2022, CM APPL.16235/2022

BHADRASHREE STEEL AND POWER LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Vipul Agrawal and

Mr. Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel.

Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate for

respondent No.3.

29 + W.P.(C) 5439/2022 & CM APPL.16238/2022

ANIL KUMAR JAIN

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Piyush Goel, Advocate.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Prasant Verma with Mr. Ashok

Kumar Verma, Advocates for UOI.

30 + W.P.(C) 5440/2022 & CM APPL.16239/2022

WHITE BROTHER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Kushank Sindhu with Mr. Anmol

Singh, Ms. Gazal Ghai and

Mr. Aditya Sen, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing

Counsel for Revenue.

31 + W.P.(C) 5443/2022 & CM APPL.16241/2022

SHREE SHAKTI WELD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Amit Kaushik with Mr. Bhateri

and Mr. Rishab Jain, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(3), DELHI ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadiyan, Advocates.

34 + W.P.(C) 5452/2022 & CM APPL.16259/2022, CM APPL.16260/2022

NIRMALA JAIN

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(3), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing

Counsel for Revenue.

Mr. Umesh K. Burnwal, Advocate for

Union of India. 35 + W.P.(C) 5454/2022 & CM APPL.16262/2022

M/S INDIAN OPTICS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Bhupinder Jit Kumar with

Ms. Akshita Agrawal, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra with

Mr. Shaildendra Singh

36 + W.P.(C) 5457/2022 & CM APPL.16267/2022, CM APPL.16389/2022

M/S SDK POWER PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(3) AND ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Puneet Rai with Mr. Karan

Pandey, Advocates. 37 + W.P.(C) 5461/2022 & CM APPL.16270/2022, CM APPL.16271/2022

M/S KMS SOLAR PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(3) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing

Counsel for Revenue. 38 + W.P.(C) 5463/2022 & CM APPL.16273/2022, CM APPL.16274/2022

LYNELL GARMENTS PVT LTD

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Samyak Jain with Ms. Aastha

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 17/06/2026 at 06:15:57

versus

ITO WARD 15(1) NEW DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing

Counsel for Revenue.

39 + W.P.(C) 5464/2022 & CM APPL.16275/2022

ORCHID INFRABUILDTECH AND RETAIL INDIA LLP ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Amit Kaushik with Mr. Bhateri

and Mr. Rishab Jain, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 30(5), DELHI ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.

40 + W.P.(C) 5465/2022 & CM APPL.16276/2022, CM APPL.16277/2022

U V BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Gaurav Jain with Ms. Akshita

Goyal and Mr. Shubham Gupta,

Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Tushar Gupta, Jr.

Standing Counsel and Mr. Samarth

Chaudhari, Advocates.

41 + W.P.(C) 5466/2022 & CM APPL.16278/2022, CM APPL.16279/2022

U V BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Gaurav Jain with Ms. Akshita

Goyal and Mr. Shubham Gupta,

Advocates.

versus

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Tushar Gupta, Jr.

Standing Counsel and Mr. Samarth

Chaudhari, Advocates.

43 + W.P.(C) 5468/2022 & CM APPL.16282/2022, CM APPL.16283/2022

ABILITIES INDIA PISTONS AND RINGS LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Advocate.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1),

DELHI

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Vipul Agrawal and

Mr. Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel. 44 + W.P.(C) 5469/2022 & CM APPL.16284/2022

NANCY VINAYAK

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Amit Kaushik with Mr. Bhateri

and Mr. Rishab Jain, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 63(1), DELHI ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Vipul Agrawal and

Mr. Parth Semwal, Jr. Standing

Counsel.

45 + W.P.(C) 5470/2022 & CM APPL.16285/2022, CM APPL.16286/2022

M/S. SHRI NIWAS PULSES (P) LTD

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadiyan, Advocates.

46 + W.P.(C) 5471/2022 & CM APPL.16287/2022

NAVEEN BATHLA

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Amit Kaushik with Mr. Bhateri

and Mr. Rishab Jain, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 34(1),

DELHI

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Zoheb Khan, Jr.

Standing Counsel and Mr. Shray

Nargotra, Advocates.

47 + W.P.(C) 5472/2022 & CM APPL.16288/2022

SUNITA BATHLA

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Amit Kaushik with Mr. Bhateri

and Mr. Rishab Jain, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 34(1),

DELHI

..... Respondent

Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadiyan, Advocates. 48 + W.P.(C) 5473/2022 & CM APPL.16289/2022, CM APPL.16290/2022

KMS SOLAR PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HR

MINERALS AND ALLOYS PVT LTD)

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(3) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing

Counsel for Revenue.

49 + W.P.(C) 5474/2022 & CM APPL.16291/2022, CM APPL.16292/2022

NEHA PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 18(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate. 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 17/06/2026 at 06:15:57

52 + W.P.(C) 5477/2022 & CM APPL.16303/2022, CM APPL.16304/2022

KRISHAN MOHAN SHARAN

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Advocate.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 49(1)

& ANR.

..... Respondents

Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing

Counsel for Revenue.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

01.04.2022 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. “CONCLUSION 97. This Court is of the view that as the Legislature has introduced the new provisions, Sections 147 to 151 of the 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 17/06/2026 at 06:15:57

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 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 17/06/2026 at 06:15:57

reassessment to be made in a particular manner, it can only be in this manner, or not at all.

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.”

Keeping in view the aforesaid, 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. 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 17/06/2026 at 06:15:57

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 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 1, 2022 st

More judgments on Section 147

Bha Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi
ITA 5208/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2026AY 2015-16
ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, Sakti
ITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…
ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Raipur
ITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), Rajkot
ITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →