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 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. 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, the impugned notices were invalid because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147 ('reason to believe') and did not comply with the amended Section 147 and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. 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 of the Act 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 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. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended provisions, was distinct. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations extending the applicability of erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151 did not cover Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A; thus, the procedure under Section 148A was not followed. (b) The assumption of jurisdiction was based on 'reason to believe' which is not recognized in the amended Section 147. (c) The Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years 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, 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 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 amendments to substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the section that amended the Act, and it did not provide for the extension of the erstwhile reassessment provisions. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they were issued on the basis of the old 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized under the amended Section 147. Additionally, the procedure under the amended Section 147, including 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 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. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, falling 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. This power was vested in the Legislature itself through Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which fell under Chapter III titled ‘Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961’. Therefore, the Explanations, by seeking to revive the applicability of repealed sections, went beyond the scope of Section 3. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the assessee's contention that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were bad in law because 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 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 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, which falls under the chapter 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. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which does amend provisions, was a legislative act. 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 repealed 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 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 Court relied on decisions from 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 that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act is a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and does not empower amendments to substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the notices were bad in law because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized under 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 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 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 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. The Court further found that the impugned notices were bad in law because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' under the erstwhile Section 147, a concept no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the procedure under the amended Section 147, which includes 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 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 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 impugned notices were also bad in law for non-compliance with the amended Section 147, which no longer relies on 'reason to believe', and for failing to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. 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 of relaxation. 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 statutory requirements. The Court relied on decisions of the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras High Courts.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification Nos. 20/2021 and 38/2021 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 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. The Court found that the impugned notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) they were based on the erstwhile Section 147's 'reason to believe' which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; (b) the procedure under the amended Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153 (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 those 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, strictly complying with the statutory requirements. The Court relied on decisions of the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras High Courts.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing and setting aside all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The 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 reasoning was that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under the chapter titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', was a 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 contained legislative amendments. The Court agreed with the assessee that only Section 4 amended the Act. Furthermore, even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid as they did not cover the erstwhile Section 147 and failed to 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. 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 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 made amendments to 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' clause from the erstwhile Section 147, which is not part of the amended Section 147. The procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was also 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 amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with its 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 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, 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 concept of 'reason to believe' under the erstwhile Section 147, whereas the amended Section 147 did not recognize this concept; (b) the amended Section 147 is subject to Sections 148 to 153, which include the mandatory procedure under Section 148A, a procedure that was not followed; and (c) the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years as the time limits for issuing notices for these years did not fall 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 relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, after 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 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 dealt with amendments, was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations were invalid; (b) even if valid, they did not cover Section 147, and the procedure under Section 148A was not followed; (c) the 'reason to believe' clause, no longer recognized in amended Section 147, was the basis for issuing the notices; and (d) 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 a relaxation provision for 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. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, they did not cover Section 147 of the Act, which empowers the revenue to reopen assessments. Consequently, the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A was not followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. 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 relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, after 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 envisage amendments to the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4 which was a legislative amendment. The Court found that the Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' clause, 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 had not been 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 these years were not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act was applicable, thus precluding any extension of limitation for such 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 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 made amendments to the Act. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because the Assessing Officers had not complied with the amended Section 147, which no longer recognized the 'reason to believe' concept, and had failed to follow 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 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 amendments to substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the Assessing Officer's assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is obsolete under the amended Section 147, and that the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed. Additionally, the Court held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years 2015-2016 and subsequent years, as the limitation period for these years was not expiring within the period of relaxation. 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, bad in law, and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act pertains to relaxation of time limits and does not grant power to amend or revive repealed substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which made amendments, was enacted by the legislature itself. 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 and Section 148A was not followed. 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, 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 provision for relaxing 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 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 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, 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 law. The Court relied on decisions from the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras High Courts.

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, 2020, 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. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amends provisions, falls under a different chapter and was made by the legislature itself. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law because even if the Explanations were considered valid, they did not cover Section 147, which empowers the revenue to reopen assessments, and the procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed. Additionally, 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 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. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court further noted that even if the Explanations were considered valid, they did not cover Section 147 of the Act, and the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A had not been 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 amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory procedures.

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 grant power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was distinct. The Court also 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, which requires adherence to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. The Court noted that the 'reason to believe' clause, a feature of the erstwhile Section 147, was no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. 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, 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. 20/2021 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 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 introduce 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 substantive provision for reopening. Consequently, even if the Explanations were valid, the procedure under the amended Section 147, including the requirement to comply with Section 148A, was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards, as the time limits for these years did not fall within the scope of Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Therefore, 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 Court relied on decisions from the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras High Courts.

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' 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. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was made by the Legislature itself. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for several 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 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 onwards as the time limit for issuing notices for these years was 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 substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the 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 requires compliance with 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 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 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 the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Such amendments were made by the Legislature itself under Section 4 of the Relaxation Act. Furthermore, even if the Explanations were considered valid, the reassessment notices were still invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which requires compliance with 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 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 provisions. The Court relied on decisions from the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court, and Madras High Court.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions. It declared the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 as ultra vires, 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,' was only a provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Such amendments were contemplated under Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court agreed with the assessee that only Section 4 amended the Act, not Section 3. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were invalid 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 'reason to believe' clause, used in the notices, is also 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 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 only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which fell under Chapter III titled ‘Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961’, was the provision that amended the Act, and no such power was delegated to the Central Government. The Court also agreed with the petitioners that even if the Explanations were considered valid, they did not cover the erstwhile Section 147, and the procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed. The Court further noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or 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, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant amended provisions of the Act.

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 only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was distinct from Section 3. 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 compliance with Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under 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 relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, after strictly complying with the statutory provisions.

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, 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. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amends provisions, was enacted by the legislature itself. Furthermore, even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147 and the mandatory 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. 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 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 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 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 distinct. The Court found that the notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations were ultra vires; (b) even if the Explanations were valid, they did not cover Section 147, and the notices failed to comply with the amended Section 147 and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A; 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 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, unlike Section 4 which made legislative amendments. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover Section 147, which empowers reopening subject to Sections 148 to 153 (including Section 148A), and thus the procedure under Section 148A was not followed; (b) the assumption of jurisdiction was based on 'reason to believe,' a concept no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; and (c) 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, 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. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were bad in law because the Assessing Officers had not complied with the amended Section 147, which mandates 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 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 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 amendments to substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4 of the same Act. The Court found that the notices were bad in law for several reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover Section 147, which empowers revenue to reopen subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A; thus, the procedure under Section 148A was not followed. (b) The assumption of jurisdiction was based on 'reason to believe,' a concept no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. (c) The Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 or 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 amended provisions of the Act and by 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 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, 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 not Section 147. It was noted that even if the Explanations were valid, the notices were still invalid because the procedure under the amended Section 147, which included 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 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 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. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which does amend 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, which no longer recognizes the 'reason to believe' basis for assumption of jurisdiction, 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. 20/2021 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 Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was distinct. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations sought to revive repealed provisions without legislative backing; (b) the Assessing Officers assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which was no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; (c) the procedure under Section 148A, which is part of the amended scheme, was not followed; and (d) 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.

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 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. 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, the impugned notices were still 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 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 relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, after 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 amendments to 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 because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147's 'reason to believe' criterion, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the procedure under the amended Section 147, which includes 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, strictly complying with the procedure.

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 null and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which deals with the relaxation of certain provisions, does not grant the power to revive repealed substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amends the Income Tax Act, was distinct and not utilized for these notifications. The Court also 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, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court further 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 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 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 a legislative amendment. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid because the Assessing Officers failed to comply with the amended Section 147 and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. 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. 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 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. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act, and no such power was delegated to the Central Government under Section 3. 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 uses the 'reason to believe' criterion and mandates compliance with Section 148A. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to 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, strictly complying with its procedures. The Court was in respectful agreement with the views of the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras High Courts.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 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 grant power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the Explanations sought to revive repealed provisions without legislative backing. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid as they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which no longer recognized the 'reason to believe' criterion, and failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. 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 the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, and therefore, 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 or revive 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', contains legislative amendments. The Court agreed with the assessee that only Section 4 amended the Act, not Section 3. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were 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 the amended 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 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 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 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 erstwhile Section 147's 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; (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, unlike the saving clause for the 1922 Act under Section 297 of the 1961 Act; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years as the time limit for issuing notices was 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, strictly complying with the statutory procedures.

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 petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act is a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and does not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amends the Act, was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court also found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were invalid because the Assessing Officers 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 was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for 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 relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, after strictly complying with the statutory provisions. The Court was in respectful agreement with the views taken by 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 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 was the provision that amended the Act, and these amendments were made by the legislature itself. The Court further held that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they were issued on the basis of the erstwhile Section 147's 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the amended Section 147 is subject to Sections 148 to 153, which include the procedure under Section 148A, a procedure that was not followed. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to 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 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 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' 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 was the provision that amended the Act. The Court further held that the impugned notices were invalid for multiple reasons. Firstly, the assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Secondly, the amended Section 147 is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A, which was not followed. Thirdly, the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or any subsequent year, as the time limit for issuing notices under Section 148 for these years was not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act was applicable. 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 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 the Act, was a legislative amendment and not a delegation of power. 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 of the Act, which requires adherence to Section 148A, and the concept of 'reason to believe' was no longer applicable. 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.

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 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 sought to extend the applicability of erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151 but did not cover Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Therefore, even if the Explanations were valid, the notices were invalid for non-compliance with Section 148A. 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 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 procedure. The Court was in respectful agreement with the views of the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras High Courts.