NYNA MITTAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

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

Section 147, Section 148, Section 151

W.P.(C)/5561/2022HC DelhiDLHC01013202202204 April 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA14 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, after March 31, 2021, must comply with the substituted Sections 147 to 151, which came into effect from April 1, 2021. The Court found that the Legislature, by introducing the new provisions through the Finance Act, 2021, intended to replace the old procedure. The Court declared the Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, issued under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020, to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act and therefore void. The reasoning was that the Executive/Revenue cannot use administrative powers to undermine parliamentary supremacy or frustrate the purpose of substituted statutory provisions. The Court explicitly disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja but agreed with the Allahabad and Rajasthan High Courts in Ashok Kumar Agarwal and Bpip Infra Private Limited, respectively. The Court also rejected the Revenue's arguments based on Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, all 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, including STL Fertilizers Limited, Indo Lamintes Pvt Ltd, Poonam Taneja, Axis Polymers Private Limited, Anurag Agarwal, Nitin Kharbanda HUF, Vikash Agarwal, Fastech Builders Private Limited, Nyna Mittal, Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Limited, Nirmala Jain, Indus Best Mega Food Park Private Limited, Renu Aggarwal, and M/s Vikas Ecotech Limited. The common challenge was against reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core issue revolved around the applicability of the substituted Sections 147 to 151, which came into effect from April 1, 2021, to notices issued after March 31, 2021. The Revenue contended that certain explanations in notifications issued under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, allowed the old procedure to continue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after March 31, 2021, are required to comply with the substituted Sections 147 to 151 of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021? 2. Whether the Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, issued under Section 3(1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, are ultra vires the said Act and consequently void? Assessee's Contention: The assessees argued that since the impugned notices were issued post-March 31, 2021, they must adhere to the newly substituted Sections 147 to 151. They contended that the Executive/Revenue could not use administrative powers under the Relaxation Act to override parliamentary legislation (Finance Act, 2021) and effectively extend the old procedure beyond its statutory expiry. They relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Mon Mohan Kohli vs. ACIT. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the Relaxation Act, 2020, and its subsequent notifications allowed for the continuation of the old reassessment procedure even after March 31, 2021. They argued that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act saved notices issued under Section 148, and that the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, was not applicable to past assessment years. They also attempted to rely on the COVID-19 pandemic to justify the extended operation of the 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) 5435/2022

W.P.(C) 5530/2022

W.P.(C) 5531/2022

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

$~100, 102 to 111, 113 to 115, 117 to 123, 125 to 127, 129 & 130 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 100 + W.P.(C) 5435/2022 & CM APPL.16232/2022

STL FERTILIZERS LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar with Ms. Devina

Sharma, Advocates.

versus

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

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing

Counsel for Revenue. 102 + W.P.(C) 5530/2022 & CM APPL.16478/2022

INDO LAMINTES PVT LTD

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Rano Jain with Mr. Venketesh

Chaurasia, Advocates.

versus

ITO, WARD 12(1), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Shailendra Singh,

Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Udit

Sharma, Advocate. 103 + W.P.(C) 5531/2022 & CM APPL.16481/2022, CM APPL.16482/2022

POONAM TANEJA

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra with Ms. Bandana

Grover and Mr. Manish Khurana, 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 06:48:16

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

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadian, Advocates for respondent

No.1. 104 + W.P.(C) 5533/2022 & CM APPL.16484/2022

AXIS POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mudit Bansal, Advocate.

versus

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Ms. Zohra Khan, Jr.

Standing Counsel for Revenue. 105 + W.P.(C) 5536/2022 & CM APPL.16490/2022

ANURAG AGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi with Mr. Tarun

Singh and Mr. Pulkit Verma, Adv.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1) & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadian, Advocates for respondent

No.1.

Mr. R.P.S. Tomer, Advocate for UOI. 106 + W.P.(C) 5537/2022 & CM APPL.16491/2022

NITIN KHARBANDA HUF

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Rano Jain with Mr. Venketesh

Chaurasia, 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 06:48:16

versus

ITO, WARD 44(1), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing

Counsel for Revenue. 107 + W.P.(C) 5538/2022 & CM APPL.16493/2022

VIKASH AGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi with Mr. Tarun

Singh and Mr. Pulkit Verma, versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(1) & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadian, Advocates for respondent

No.1.

108 + W.P.(C) 5539/2022 & CM APPL.16495/2022

AXIS POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mudit Bansal, Advocate.

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Ms. Zohra Khan, Jr.

Standing Counsel for Revenue.

versus

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate.

109 + W.P.(C) 5548/2022 & CM APPL.16516/2022, CM APPL.16517/2022

FASTECH BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Ms. Zohra Khan, Jr.

Standing Counsel for Revenue.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate. 110 + W.P.(C) 5561/2022 & CM APPL.16550/2022, CM APPL.16551/2022

NYNA MITTAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rohit Jain with Mr. Aniket D.

Agrawal, Advocates.

versus

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

Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing

Counsel for Revenue with Mr. Vipul

Agrawal and Mr. Parth Semwal, Jr.

Standing Counsel

Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate for

respondent No.3. 111 + W.P.(C) 5566/2022 & CM APPL.16558/2022, CM APPL.16559/2022

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor with Mr. Sanat

Kapoor and Mr. Tarun Chanana, 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 06:48:16

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)

DELHI AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadian, Advocates for respondent

No.1. 113 + W.P.(C) 5571/2022 & CM APPL.16566/2022

VIKASH AGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi with Mr. Tarun

Singh and Mr. Pulkit Verma, versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(1) & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadian, Advocates for respondent

No.1.

114 + W.P.(C) 5573/2022 & CM APPL.16568/2022, CM APPL.16569/2022

NIRMALA JAIN

..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Divya with Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, versus

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

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing

Counsel for Income Tax Department.

115 + W.P.(C) 5574/2022 & CM APPL.16570/2022, CM APPL.16571/2022

INDUS BEST MEGA FOOD PARK PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gautam Swarup with

Mr. Kartikea Jaiswal and Ms. Gunjan

Jindal, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.

117 + W.P.(C) 5579/2022 & CM APPL.16576/2022, CM APPL.16577/2022

RENU AGGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sachin Kaushik, Advocate.

versus

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

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing

Counsel for Income Tax Department.

118 + W.P.(C) 5585/2022 & CM APPL.16587/2022, CM APPL.16588/2022

M/S VIKAS ECOTECH LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Puneet Agarwal with Mr. Yuvraj

Singh, Ms. Hemlata Rawat,

Mr. Ayushmaan, Mr. Vatsyayana and

Mr. Chetan Kumar Shukla, versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel

with Ms. Adeeba Mujahid, Jr.

Standing Counsel and Mr. Karan

Pandey, Advocate. 119 + W.P.(C) 5596/2022 & CM APPL.16604/2022, CM APPL.16605/2022

M/S VIKAS ECOTECH LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Puneet Agarwal with Mr. Yuvraj

Singh, Ms. Hemlata Rawat,

Mr. Ayushmaan, Mr. Vatsyayana and

Mr. Chetan Kumar Shukla, versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(1)

DELHI AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel

with Ms. Adeeba Mujahid, Jr.

Standing Counsel and Mr. Karan

Pandey, Advocate. 120 + W.P.(C) 5599/2022 & CM APPL.16610/2022, CM APPL.16611/2022

M/S VIKAS ECOTECH LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Puneet Agarwal with Mr. Yuvraj

Singh, Ms. Hemlata Rawat,

Mr. Ayushmaan, Mr. Vatsyayana and

Mr. Chetan Kumar Shukla, versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel 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 06:48:16

with Ms. Adeeba Mujahid, Jr.

Standing Counsel and Mr. Karan

Pandey, Advocate.

121 + W.P.(C) 5604/2022 & CM APPL.16624/2022, CM APPL.16625/2022

M/S VIKAS ECOTECH LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Puneet Agarwal with Mr. Yuvraj

Singh, Ms. Hemlata Rawat,

Mr. Ayushmaan, Mr. Vatsyayana and

Mr. Chetan Kumar Shukla, versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 25(1),

DELHI AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel

with Ms. Adeeba Mujahid, Jr.

Standing Counsel and Mr. Karan

Pandey, Advocate. 122 + W.P.(C) 5615/2022 & CM APPL.16640/2022

VIKASH AGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi with Mr. Tarun

Singh and Mr. Pulkit Verma, versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(1) & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadian, Advocates for respondent

No.1.

123 + W.P.(C) 5616/2022 & CM APPL.16641/2022

RUDAWAL CAPITAL TRUST LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Kapil Goel, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21 (1) DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing

Counsel for Revenue. 125 + W.P.(C) 5619/2022 & CM APPL.16643/2022

ANURAG AGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi with Mr. Tarun

Singh and Mr. Pulkit Verma, versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1) & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadian, Advocates for respondent

No.1. 126 + W.P.(C) 5626/2022 & CM APPL.16660/2022

CM APPL.16661/2022, CM APPL.16662/2022

GEETA AHUJA THROUGH SPA HOLDER SH. NAND LAL

AHUJA

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mayank Aggarwal with

Mr. Varun Budhiraja and Mr. Pradeep

Kumar Aggarwal, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54(1) & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Ms. Zohra Khan, Jr.

Standing Counsel for Revenue.

Ms. Jatinder Kaur, Advocate for

respondent No.2. 127 + W.P.(C) 5627/2022 & CM APPL.16668/2022

ANURAG AGARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi with Mr. Tarun

Singh and Mr. Pulkit Verma, versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1) & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadian, Advocates for respondent

No.1.

Mr. R.P.S. Tomer, Advocate for UOI. 129 + W.P.(C) 5634/2022 & CM APPL.16729/2022, CM APPL.16730/2022

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor with Mr. Sanat

Kapoor and Mr. Tarun Chanana, versus

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

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadian, Advocates for respondent

No.1.

Mr. R.P.S. Tomer, Advocate for UOI.

130 + W.P.(C) 5638/2022 & CM APPL.16734/2022, CM APPL.16735/2022

M/S VIKAS ECOTECH LIMITED

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Puneet Agarwal with Mr. Yuvraj

Singh, Ms. Hemlata Rawat,

Mr. Ayushmaan, Mr. Vatsyayana and

Mr. Chetan Kumar Shukla, versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel

with Ms. Adeeba Mujahid, Jr.

Standing Counsel and Mr. Karan

Pandey, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

04.04.2022 O R D E R

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 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 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 06:48:16

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.

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 06:48:16

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

s DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J APRIL 4, 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 17/06/2026 at 06:48:16

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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →