Bombay High Court Judgments — 2022

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the one that amended the Act, and no such power was delegated to the Central Government under Section 3. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law as they did not comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, which no longer recognizes the 'reason to believe' criterion and requires compliance with Section 148A. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for several reasons: (a) the Explanations to the notifications were invalid; (b) the notices were issued based on the 'reason to believe' concept from the erstwhile Section 147, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; (c) the procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all the impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was distinct from Section 3. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) they were based on repealed provisions, (b) they failed to comply with the amended Section 147, which no longer uses the 'reason to believe' criterion, and (c) the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years 2015-2016 and onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision for time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover the erstwhile Section 147, which is a prerequisite for reopening; (b) the assumption of jurisdiction was based on 'reason to believe,' a concept no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; (c) the procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the law.

The Bombay High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not grant the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct and made by the legislature itself. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which no longer recognizes the 'reason to believe' concept, and failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification Nos. 20/2021 and 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was merely a relaxation provision for time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act. The Court found that the Explanations sought to extend the applicability of erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151 but did not cover Section 147, which empowers reopening subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A. Therefore, even if the Explanations were valid, the procedure under Section 148A was not followed, rendering the notices invalid. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or any subsequent year, as the time limits for issuing notices for these years were not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act was applicable. Consequently, the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend or revive substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was a legislative amendment and not a delegation. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was merely a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was legislatively enacted and did not involve delegation of amendment power to the Central Government. Furthermore, the Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law as they were issued based on the erstwhile 'reason to believe' concept under Section 147, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory procedures.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not envisage amendments to the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4 of the same Act. The Court found that the Explanations sought to give effect to the erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151 but did not cover Section 147, which empowers reopening subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. Since the procedure under Section 148A was not followed, the notices were invalid. Additionally, the Court noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled ‘Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act’, was a provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. In contrast, Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter III titled ‘Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961’, was the section that made legislative amendments. The Court agreed with the assessee that only Section 4 amended the Act, and Section 3 did not envisage amendments to substantive provisions. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were bad in law as they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory procedures.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, declaring the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 as ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under the chapter 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It distinguished this from Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which made legislative amendments. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 amended the Act, not Section 3. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, they did not cover Section 147, which requires compliance with Section 148A, a procedure that was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the law. The ratio decidendi is that notifications extending the applicability of repealed provisions of the Income Tax Act beyond the scope of the enabling Relaxation Act are invalid, and reassessment proceedings must strictly adhere to the currently applicable statutory provisions.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, which was instead done by Section 4. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid as they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which requires compliance with Section 148A and no longer relies on the 'reason to believe' standard. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions. It held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore void. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still bad in law as they failed to comply with the amended Section 147 and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to the assessment years in question. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under the chapter titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', only deals with time limits and does not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It distinguished this from Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which makes legislative amendments. The Court found that the Explanations sought to extend the applicability of erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151 but did not cover Section 147, which is the empowering section for reopening. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the Explanations were valid, the procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory provisions. The Court was in respectful agreement with the views taken by the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras High Courts.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires and consequently bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, they did not cover Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed. Additionally, the Court noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings strictly in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which fell under the chapter titled ‘Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act’, was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the Central Government the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power was vested in the Legislature itself, as evidenced by Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which was in a different chapter titled ‘Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961’. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 amended the Act. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' concept from the erstwhile Section 147, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, had not been followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards as the time limits for issuing notices were not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act was applicable. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was distinct and did not delegate amendment powers to the Central Government. The Court further found that the impugned notices were bad in law because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' criterion, which is no longer recognized under the amended Section 147, and because the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for assessment years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory procedures. The Court was in respectful agreement with the High Courts of Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras on these points.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore, bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' criterion, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; (b) the procedure under Section 148A, which is part of the amended provisions, was not followed; and (c) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to the assessment years in question, as the time limits for issuing notices for those years were not expiring within the period covered by Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory requirements. The Court relied on decisions from the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court, and Madras High Court.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires and therefore bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act, and it was done by the legislature itself. The Court found that the Explanations sought to give effect to the erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151 but did not cover Section 147, which is crucial for assuming jurisdiction. Moreover, even if the Explanations were valid, the procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A had not been followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory requirements. The ratio is that notifications cannot override statutory amendments, and procedural requirements, including those under Section 148A, must be followed for valid reassessment proceedings.

The Bombay High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act contained such amendments. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were bad in law as they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires and therefore bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act contained such amendments made by the legislature. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions. It held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It distinguished Section 3 from Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did contain legislative amendments. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which was no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, and more importantly, the mandatory procedure under Section 148A had not been followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices under Section 148 were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was merely a relaxation provision for time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act contained legislative amendments. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which requires adherence to Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements. The Court was in respectful agreement with the views taken by the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras High Courts.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act amended the Act. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were bad in law because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147 ('reason to believe') and failed to comply with the amended Section 147 and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Additionally, the Court noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the law.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower amendments to substantive provisions of the Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' criterion, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Moreover, the amended Section 147 is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure in Section 148A, which was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory provisions.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which fell under the chapter titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', was a provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the Central Government the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power was distinct from Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which was legislatively enacted to amend the Act. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 amended the Act, not Section 3. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' under the repealed Section 147, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the procedure under the amended Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153 (including Section 148A), was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the Explanations did not cover Section 147, which is crucial for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction. Even if the Explanations were considered valid, the procedure under Section 148A, which is part of the amended provisions, was not followed. Additionally, the Court held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification Nos. 20/2021 and 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled ‘Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act’, only deals with relaxation of time limits and does not grant power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Chapter III, containing Section 4, is titled ‘Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961’, indicating that legislative amendments were made by the legislature itself. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which no longer recognizes the concept of 'reason to believe' for assumption of jurisdiction, and failed to follow the procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act. The Court was in respectful agreement with the views taken by the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras High Courts.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and, therefore, bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act only provided for relaxation of time limits and did not grant the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It distinguished Section 3 from Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, noting that Section 4 contained legislative amendments. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147's 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because they did not comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires the Relaxation Act and the Income Tax Act, 1961, and were therefore bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision for time limits and did not grant power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the notices were also invalid for non-compliance with the amended Section 147, which no longer recognizes the 'reason to believe' clause, and for failing to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Additionally, the Court held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years because the limitation period for these years did not fall within the scope of Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was merely a relaxation provision for time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4 which contained legislative amendments. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for several reasons: (a) they were issued based on the repealed 'reason to believe' concept under the erstwhile Section 147, whereas the amended Section 147 did not recognize this; (b) the procedure under the amended Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153 (including Section 148A), was not followed; (c) there was no saving clause for the applicability of erstwhile Sections 147 to 151, implying the amended provisions applied from April 1, 2021; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years as the time limits for issuing notices for these years were not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act was applicable. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires, invalid, and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act, and it did not grant the power to extend the applicability of repealed sections in the manner attempted by the notifications. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were bad in law as they did not comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, which requires adherence to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower amendments to substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover Section 147, which empowers reopening subject to Sections 148 to 153 (including Section 148A), meaning the procedure under Section 148A was not followed; (b) there was no saving clause for the applicability of erstwhile Sections 147 to 151, implying the amended provisions would apply from April 1, 2021; and (c) the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards as the time limits for these years were not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act was applicable. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act contained such amendments. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because the Assessing Officers had not complied with the amended Section 147 of the Act. Specifically, the assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' clause, which is obsolete under the amended Section 147, and the procedure under Section 148A, which is mandatory, was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Act; only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act amended the Act. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they did not comply with the amended provisions of the Act. Specifically, the assumption of jurisdiction was based on the repealed 'reason to believe' concept under the erstwhile Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed. Additionally, the Court noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory provisions. The Court was in respectful agreement with the High Courts of Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower amendments to the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; (b) the procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed; and (c) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years 2015-2016 onwards, as the time limits for these years were not expiring within the period covered by Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020, which falls under Chapter II titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', only deals with time limits and does not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Chapter III, containing Section 4, is where amendments to the Income Tax Act were made by the legislature itself. Therefore, the Explanations, by attempting to revive the repealed provisions of Sections 148, 149, and 151, exceeded the scope of Section 3. Furthermore, even if the Explanations were considered valid, they did not cover Section 147, which mandates compliance with Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act amended the Act. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which requires adherence to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. The 'reason to believe' basis for assuming jurisdiction was also deemed obsolete under the amended provisions. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires and therefore bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was a legislative act. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, they did not cover Section 147 of the Act, which is the basis for assuming jurisdiction to reopen assessments. Consequently, the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A, which requires compliance with Sections 148 to 153, was not followed. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years 2015-2016 onwards. All impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, after strictly complying with the statutory provisions.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and consequently bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower amendments to substantive provisions of the Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the Explanations did not cover Section 147 and that the procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed. Additionally, the Court noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Therefore, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and void. The Court agreed with the petitioner that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct and made by the legislature itself. Consequently, the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Court found that the notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations were ultra vires, (b) the notices relied on the repealed 'reason to believe' concept instead of the amended Section 147, (c) the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed, and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to the assessment years in question. The Court allowed the petitions, permitting the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4 which did. The Court found that the Explanations sought to extend the applicability of erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151, but not Section 147, and that the amended Section 147 requires compliance with Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A, which was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years as the time limits for issuing notices were not expiring within the period covered by Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and consequently bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was merely a relaxation provision for time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It was noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct from Section 3. The Court found that the Explanations did not cover Section 147, which empowers the revenue to reopen assessments subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A. Therefore, even if the Explanations were valid, the procedure under Section 148A was not followed, making the notices invalid. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct. The Court found that the notices were also bad in law for non-compliance with the amended Section 147, as they relied on the repealed 'reason to believe' concept and failed to follow the procedure under Section 148A. Furthermore, the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the law.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4 which made legislative amendments. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law. This was because the Explanations did not cover Section 147, which empowers the revenue to reopen assessments subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Assessing Officers had not followed the procedure under Section 148A, and their assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized under the amended Section 147. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, and were therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision for time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the impugned notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; (b) the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed, even if the Explanations were considered valid; and (c) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years as the time limits for issuing notices for these years were not expiring within the period of applicability of Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 are ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act contained such amendments. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which requires adherence to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, after strictly complying with the statutory requirements. The Court relied on decisions from the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court, and Madras High Court.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was merely a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4 which did. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were bad in law because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which requires compliance with Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements. The Court was in respectful agreement with the views taken by various High Courts on this matter.