ANUJ JAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.
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 of the Act, which came into effect from April 1, 2021. The Court found that the Legislature had introduced new provisions, and Section 147 was not mentioned in the impugned Explanations. The Court clarified that while the power of reassessment existed until June 30, 2021, the Finance Act, 2021, changed the procedure to be followed from April 1, 2021. The Court ruled that Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act empowers the government to extend time limits but not to legislate on provisions for initiating reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the 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 Court quashed the impugned reassessment notices and allowed the writ petitions. The Revenue was granted liberty to take further steps if permitted by law, and petitioners could pursue remedies if aggrieved.
What were the facts?
The petitioners in these writ petitions (W.P.(C) 5760/2022, 5765/2022, 5767/2022, 5772/2022, 5777/2022, 5786/2022, and 5793/2022) challenged 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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which became effective from April 1, 2021. The Revenue contended that certain explanations in notifications issued by the government allowed for the continued use of the old procedure. The matters were consolidated and heard together.
What were the issues?
1. Whether reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, post March 31, 2021, were required to comply with the substituted Sections 147 to 151 of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021. Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that since the impugned notices were issued after April 1, 2021, they must strictly follow the newly substituted provisions of Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They contended that the procedure prescribed by the Finance Act, 2021, was mandatory and that any attempt to circumvent it through executive notifications was invalid. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the power of reassessment that existed prior to March 31, 2021, continued to exist till June 30, 2021. They relied on Explanations in Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which they contended allowed for the issuance of notices under the old 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.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (3 matters)
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 10:40:56
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 10:40:56
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
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 10:40:56
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.
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.
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 10:40:56
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.
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.
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.
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 18/06/2026 at 10:40:56
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 10:40:56
More judgments on Section 147
- Bha Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New DelhiITA 5208/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2026AY 2015-16
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 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), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Amritsar Haveli Cuisines Private Limited & Anr. vs. Amarbir Singh & Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Abd Maestro Private Limited vs. Great Galleon Ventures LTDDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Jangeer Singh Trading As Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works vs. Yogesh Jangid Trading As Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Rabindranath Behera vs. The Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Dinesh Dash vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026