JAIN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5760/2022HC DelhiDLHC01013680202207 April 2022Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA6 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 substituted Sections 147 to 151 (effective from April 1, 2021) are invalid. The Court relied on its previous decision in Mon Mohan Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. The Court found that the Legislature introduced new provisions (Sections 147 to 151) via the Finance Act, 2021, and any reassessment notice issued after March 31, 2021, had to comply with these substituted sections. The Court rejected the Revenue's arguments regarding the saving of old powers, the applicability of the General Clauses Act, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. It held that the executive/revenue cannot use administrative powers under the Relaxation Act, 2020, 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, and petitioners could pursue remedies if aggrieved by such steps.

What were the facts?

The judgment consolidates multiple writ petitions filed by various assessees, including Jain Cooperative Bank Limited, Udit Mehrotra, Aayana Marbles Pvt Ltd, Pawan Sharma, Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., Swati Jain, and Anuj Jain. The common thread in these petitions is that the impugned notices for reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were issued after March 31, 2021. The assessees challenged these notices on the grounds that they were issued without adhering to the procedure prescribed in the substituted Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which became effective from April 1, 2021. The Revenue, represented by various Income Tax Officers and Commissioners, contended for the validity of these notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, post March 31, 2021, are valid if they do not comply with the substituted Sections 147 to 151 of the Act, effective from April 1, 2021? Assessee's Contention: The assessees argued that the Finance Act, 2021, introduced new provisions for reassessment (Sections 147 to 151) effective from April 1, 2021. Notices issued after this date must strictly follow these new procedures. They relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Mon Mohan Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (W.P.(C) No.6176/2021). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the power of reassessment existing prior to March 31, 2021, continued to exist until June 30, 2021. They also argued that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act saves notices issued under Section 148 post March 31, 2021. Furthermore, they argued that the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, is not applicable to past Assessment Years as it is substantial in nature. They also attempted to rely on the Covid-19 pandemic to argue that the new provisions should not operate during April 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021, and made submissions regarding the non-obstante clause in Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, legal fiction, and stop-the-clock 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) 5760/2022
W.P.(C) 5765/2022
W.P.(C) 5767/2022

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

$~38 to 41, 43, 44 and 46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 38 + W.P.(C) 5760/2022 & CM APPL.17253/2022

JAIN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Gagan Narang with Mr. Divyansh

Tiwari and Mr. Rudrakash Gupta,

Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing

Counsel and Mr. Amrit Pradhan,

Advocates.

39 + W.P.(C) 5765/2022 & CM APPL.17262/2022, CM APPL.17263/2022

UDIT MEHROTRA

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Upvan Gupta, Advocate.

versus

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE

13(1) DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.

40 + W.P.(C) 5767/2022 & CM APPL.17264/2022

AAYANA MARBLES PVT LTD

..... 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 18/06/2026 at 10:40:44

versus

ACIT, CIR 1(1), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadian, Advocates for respondent

No.1. 41 + W.P.(C) 5772/2022 & CM APPL.17273/2022

PAWAN SHARMA

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rajat Vaishnav and Mr. Mudit

Bansal, Advocates.

versus

THE ITO, WARD 23(1), DELHI

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Advocate.

43 + W.P.(C) 5777/2022 & CM APPL.17280/2022, CM APPL.17281/2022

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD. (AFTER

MERGER OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD.) ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor with Mr. Sumit

Lalchandani and Ms. Ananya Kapoor,

Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)

& ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. Easha

Kadian, Advocates for respondent

No.1.

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 18/06/2026 at 10:40:44

44 + W.P.(C) 5786/2022 & CM APPL.17296/2022

SWATI JAIN

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58(1) DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Advocate. 46 + W.P.(C) 5793/2022 & CM APPL.17307/2022, CM APPL.17308/2022

ANUJ JAIN

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singhwal,

Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. Standing

Counsel with Mr. Shailendra Singh,

Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Udit

Sharma, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

O R D E R %

07.04.2022

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 December, 2021 passed by this Court in the case of Mon Mohan 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 18/06/2026 at 10:40:44

Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., W.P.(C) No.6176/2021. 2. The conclusion reached by this Court in Mon Mohan Kohli (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- “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.

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 18/06/2026 at 10:40:44

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.

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 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 18/06/2026 at 10:40:44

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 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 7, 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 18/06/2026 at 10:40:44

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →