ASHOK KUMAR PINISETTI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY W.P. No.128 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: ASHOK KUMAR PINISETTI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.60, 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS 4TH PHASE, J P NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 078.

... PETITIONER (BY MR. SHREEHARI., ADVOCATE) AND: DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 6(1)(1), BENGALURU.

... RESPONDENT (BY MR. K.V. ARAVIND, A/W MR. DILIP .M, ADVOCATES) - - -

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 30.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/148/2021- 22/1033930288(1) ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A & ETC., THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2 ORDER The petitioner in this writ petition has sought quashment of explanation below Clause (A) in the notification bearing No.20/2021 F.NO.370142/35/2020-TPL dated 31.03.2021 and notification No.38/2021/F.No.370142/35/2020-TPL dated 27.04.2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, as ultra vires the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1961 Act’ for short) and the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2020 Act’ for short). The petitioner has also prayed for relief that extension of time limit by the 2020 Act does not apply to notices issued under erstwhile Section 148 of the 1961 Act, after 01.04.2021. The petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the notices

3 dated 30.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the 1961 Act for the Assessment year 2016-17. 2. We have heard the learned counsel at length. For the reasons assigned by us in the judgment dated 19.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.22348/2021 and for the reasons assigned by division bench of High Court of Allahabad in ASHOK KUAR AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA’, Rajasthan High Court in ‘BPIP INFRA (P.) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR, Delhi High Court decision in MON MOHAN KOHLI VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. And decision of Bombay High Court in TATA COMMUNICATIONS TRANSFORMATION SERVICES LIMITED, VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1) AND OTHERS, W.P.NO.1334/2021 the explanation below Clause (A) in the notification bearing

4 No.20/2021370142/35/2020-tl dated 31.03.2021 and notification No.38/2021f. No.370142/35/2020- TPL dated 27.04.2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes is hereby declared as ultra vires the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The impugned notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed. 3. However, it will be open to the Assessing Officer concerned to initiate fresh re-assessment proceeding in accordance with relevant provisions of the 1961 Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021 after strictly complying with the provisions of the Act.

5 In the result, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE SS