Bombay High Court Judgments — 2022

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 null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention 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. Such amendments are made by the legislature itself, as seen in Section 4 of the Relaxation Act. The Court further 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 'reason to believe' concept, and the mandatory procedure under 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, with liberty to 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 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 are ultra vires, bad in law, 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 the 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 notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover Section 147, which is crucial for assuming jurisdiction, and the procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A was not followed; (b) Section 297 of the Act, which provides saving clauses, did not apply to the erstwhile Sections 147 to 151, meaning the amended provisions would apply from April 1, 2021; and (c) the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years, rendering the notifications irrelevant for those 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 procedures.

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 petitioners 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 amended the Act, was distinct and did not delegate amendment powers to the Central Government. The Court found that the impugned notices were invalid for multiple 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 mandatory procedure under the amended Section 148A was not followed; and (c) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years 2015-2016 and subsequent years, as the time limits for these years did not fall within the scope of 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 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 void. The Court agreed with the petitioners 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 was Section 4 of the Relaxation Act that amended the Act. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) they relied on the repealed 'reason to believe' concept of 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. 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.

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 merely a relaxation provision for 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. The Court found that the Explanations sought to give effect to the erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151 but did not cover the erstwhile Section 147. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officers was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, 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 under Section 148A, which was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. The Court quashed and set aside all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, 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 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 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 amended the Act. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were bad in law 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 'reason to believe' basis for jurisdiction, a concept from the repealed provisions, was also not recognized under the amended Section 147. 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 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 agreed with the petitioners 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 did so. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons. Firstly, they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147's 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Secondly, the procedure under the amended Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153 (including Section 148A), was not followed. Thirdly, 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 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 provisions.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions. On the first issue, the 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 falls under Chapter II titled ‘Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act’, was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits, and did not grant power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power was distinct from Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions of the Income Tax Act, but was made by the Legislature itself. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 amended the Act, not Section 3. On the second issue, the Court held that even if the Explanations were assumed to be valid, the impugned notices were bad in law. This was because the Explanations did not cover the erstwhile Section 147, which empowered revenue to reopen subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A. The Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, and had failed to follow the procedure under Section 148A. The Court cited the Delhi High Court's decision in Mon Mohan Kohli. On the third issue, the Court held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or any subsequent year, as the time limit to issue notices for these years was not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act was applicable. Therefore, there was no question of extending the period of limitation for such assessment 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 after 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, 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 intended for relaxing time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Such amendments were dealt with under Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court also found that the impugned notices were bad in law because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which mandates adherence to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. Furthermore, the Court 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. 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 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 amended the Act, was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court found that the impugned notices were invalid not only because the Explanations were ultra vires but also because they failed to comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, which no longer relies on the 'reason to believe' criterion, and did not 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 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 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, which falls under the chapter titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', only deals with time limits and does not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which does amend provisions, was not the basis for these notifications. The Court further noted that even if the Explanations were considered valid, they did not cover Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A was not followed. Additionally, the Court found 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 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 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 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 empowered 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 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 allowed the writ petitions, holding that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires, bad in law, 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', only provides for relaxation of time limits and does not grant the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which does amend provisions, falls under Chapter III and was enacted by the legislature itself. Therefore, the Explanations, by seeking to extend the applicability of erstwhile sections, exceeded the scope of Section 3. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because the Assessing Officers failed to comply with the amended Section 147, which no longer recognizes the 'reason to believe' clause, and did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act is 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 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, which falls under Chapter II 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 vested in the Legislature itself through Section 4 of the Relaxation Act. The Court agreed with the assessee that Section 3 did not envisage amendments to the substantive provisions. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' clause, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, and because the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also found 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, 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 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 only 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 impugned notices were bad in law because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' clause, which is no longer recognized under the amended Section 147, and that the mandatory procedure under Section 148A 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 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, 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 substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4 which did so. The Court found that the Explanations sought to extend the applicability of erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151 but did not cover Section 147. Crucially, even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid because the Assessing Officers assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is obsolete under the amended Section 147, and failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Additionally, the Court held 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, 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 procedure.

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 void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled ‘Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act’, only deals with time limits and does not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power to amend substantive provisions was exercised by the legislature itself through Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter III. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid as they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147 (requiring 'reason to believe') and failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A. 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 petitioners 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 made by the legislature itself. The Court found that the notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations were invalid; (b) the assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' criterion, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; (c) the procedure under Section 148A, which is mandatory under the amended provisions, was not followed; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to the assessment years in question, meaning the time limits for those years could not be extended. 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 the Relaxation Act and the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled ‘Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act’, only deals with time limits and does not grant the Central Government the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Such amendments were made by the Legislature itself under Section 4 of the Relaxation Act. The Court further agreed with the assessee that even if the Explanations were valid, they did not cover Section 147 of the Act, and the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A was not followed. Additionally, the Court found 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.

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 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 was the provision that amended the Act, and such amendments were made by the legislature itself, not delegated. The Court further 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 not recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 148A was not followed. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to 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 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 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’, only deals with relaxation of time limits and does not grant power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power to amend substantive provisions was exercised by the legislature itself through Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter III. The Court agreed with the assessee that 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 still invalid because the Assessing Officers failed to comply with the amended Section 147, which no longer recognizes the 'reason to believe' concept, and did not follow 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. 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 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 a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was done by the legislature itself. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the notices were invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147 and the procedure under Section 148A, which was mandatory. 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. The ratio decidendi is that executive notifications cannot revive repealed statutory provisions, and procedural compliances under amended laws must be strictly followed.

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 reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled ‘Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act’, deals only with time limits and does not grant power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter III titled ‘Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961’, was the provision that amended the Act, and this was done by the Legislature itself, not delegated to the Central Government. The Court also agreed with the assessee's submission that even if the Explanations were 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 found 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 Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with 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 therefore bad in law and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under the chapter 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', only deals with time limits and does not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power was exercised by the legislature itself through Section 4 of the Relaxation Act. The Court also found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147 (requiring 'reason to believe') which is no longer the basis for reassessment under the amended Act. Furthermore, the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed, rendering the notices non-compliant with statutory provisions. 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. 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' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not envisage amendments to substantive provisions of the Act, which was the domain of Section 4. The Court found that the notices were bad in law because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147, which required 'reason to believe,' a concept no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Moreover, the amended Section 147 is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A, which was not followed. The Court also held 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, 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 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' submission 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 did amend the Act, was enacted by the legislature directly, without delegation. Furthermore, the Court 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 requires adherence to Section 148A and does not recognize the 'reason to believe' criterion. 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 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 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 is a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and does not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which does amend provisions, was a legislative act. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were bad in law as they did not comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, which does not recognize 'reason to believe' and mandates compliance with 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.

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 void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision concerning 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 and made by the legislature itself. The Court found that the Explanations attempted to extend the applicability of repealed provisions (erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151) without legislative authority. Furthermore, the Court held that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, and because 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 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, 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 only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power was distinct from Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend certain provisions. The Court agreed with the assessee that only Section 4 amended the Act, not Section 3. Consequently, the Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations were invalid; (b) the notices were issued based on the repealed concept of 'reason to believe' under the erstwhile Section 147, whereas the amended Section 147 did not recognize this; (c) the mandatory procedure under Section 148A, which is part of the amended provisions (Sections 148 to 153), was not followed; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and 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. 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 Bombay 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 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 because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147 (requiring '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 relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions. It held that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled '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 the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter III titled 'Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961,' amended the Act. Therefore, the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were declared ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court further reasoned that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid as they did not comply with the amended Section 147 (which removed the 'reason to believe' requirement) and failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Additionally, the Court found 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, bad in law, and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was merely a provision for relaxing time limits and did not empower the government to revive repealed substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was distinct from Section 3. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid because the Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' clause, which was no longer a valid basis under the amended Section 147. The mandatory procedure under Section 148A was also not followed. 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 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 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. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was made by the Legislature itself. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147 ('reason to believe') which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. 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.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions. The 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 reasoning was that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled ‘Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act’, was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power was not delegated to the Central Government, unlike Section 4 of the Relaxation Act which was in Chapter III and made by the Legislature itself. The Court further agreed with the assessee's submission 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 no longer recognized the concept of 'reason to believe' for assuming jurisdiction, and also failed to follow the procedure under Section 148A. Additionally, the Court found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or any subsequent year, as the time limits for these years were not expiring within the applicable period 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 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 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 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 did amend the Act, was legislatively enacted and did not involve delegation of amendment power to the Central Government. The Court further reasoned that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which no longer recognizes the 'reason to believe' clause, and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years where the limitation period was not expiring within the stipulated period. 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 procedures.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions. It 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 reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act,' only provides for relaxation of time limits and does not grant the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such amendments are found in Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter III titled 'Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961.' The Court agreed with the assessee that only Section 4 amended the Act, and no such amendments were envisaged under Section 3. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because the Assessing Officers 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 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. 20/2021 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 amended the Act, was enacted by the legislature. The Court also found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were bad in law as they did not comply with the amended Section 147 (which no longer requires 'reason to believe') and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court further 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 procedures. The ratio is that notifications extending substantive provisions of tax law beyond legislative intent, without proper delegation, are invalid, and procedural compliances are mandatory for reassessment.

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 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 of the Relaxation 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. 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 law.

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 relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Act. 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 the erstwhile Section 147 of the Act, which is essential for assuming jurisdiction. The Court also highlighted that the amended Section 147 requires compliance with Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A, which was not followed. Additionally, the Court found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to 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 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 Relaxation Act and 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 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 Explanations sought to give effect to the erstwhile provisions of Sections 148, 149, and 151, but crucially, did not cover Section 147, which empowers reassessment. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Furthermore, the amended Section 147 is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under 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 these years were not expiring within the period of applicability of Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. The Court quashed all impugned notices and permitted 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 Nos. 20/2021 and 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 is a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and does not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act or revive repealed sections. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amends provisions, is distinct. The Court also found that the impugned notices were bad in law because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, as the assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, and the procedure under Section 148A was not followed. 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 in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the law. The Court relied on decisions of the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras High Courts.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions. On the first issue, the 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 reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which dealt with relaxation of provisions, did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4 which was titled 'Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961'. The Court agreed with the assessee that only Section 4 amended the Act, and Section 3 was merely a relaxation provision for time limits. On the second issue, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law. This was because the notices were issued based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer part of the amended Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also noted that Section 297 of the Act, which provides saving clauses, did not contain a similar saving for the erstwhile Sections 147 to 151. Regarding the third issue, the Court held 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 covered by Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside all impugned notices issued under Section 148, permitting 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 are 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. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct. The Court found that the notices were invalid for multiple reasons. Firstly, the assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' clause, which is no longer part of the amended Section 147. Secondly, the procedure under Section 148A, which is mandatory under the amended provisions, was not followed. Thirdly, the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards, as the time limits for those 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 allowed the writ petitions, declaring the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 as ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which fell under the chapter 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', was a relaxation provision for time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Such amendments were only provided for in Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which was enacted by the Legislature itself. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the petitioners that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid as 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 amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing and setting aside all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court declared the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 as ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The reasoning was that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under the chapter 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', was solely a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power was distinct from Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which itself amended provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court agreed with the assessee that only Section 4 amended the Act, not Section 3. Furthermore, even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid as 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 found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. 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, 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 for time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4 which did amend the 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. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Furthermore, 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 for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. 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 procedures.

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, 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 substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was made by the legislature itself. 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 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 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 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 contained legislative amendments. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for several reasons: (a) they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147's 'reason to believe' clause, 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 and subsequent years as the time limits for issuing notices for these years were not expiring within the relevant period. 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 High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires, invalid, and consequently 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 relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the Central Government the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power was distinct from Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions of the Act through legislative action. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 amended the Act, not Section 3. Therefore, the notices issued based on these Explanations were bad in law. Additionally, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid because the Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Furthermore, the mandatory procedure under Section 148A, as stipulated in the amended Act, had not been followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years, 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 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 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, 1961. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was made by the legislature itself. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the 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, which was not followed. The 'reason to believe' clause, a concept from the repealed provisions, was also incorrectly used. 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. 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.