Bombay High Court Judgments — 2022

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the assessee that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision for time limits and did not amend the 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 requires compliance with Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. Consequently, the notices issued were invalid for non-compliance with Section 148A and the amended Section 147. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. 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 allowed the writ petitions. It 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', was only a relaxation provision for time limits and did not grant 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. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid as they did not comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, which requires compliance with Section 148A and does not recognize the 'reason to believe' criterion. 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, 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 relaxation provision for time limits and did not empower amendments to substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, which was only done by Section 4. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147 ('reason to believe') and failed to comply with the amended Section 147 and the procedural requirement of Section 148A. Additionally, the Court 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 void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was merely a relaxation provision for time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. 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 for multiple reasons. Firstly, the Explanations did not cover the erstwhile Section 147, which empowers revenue to reopen subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A. Therefore, even if the Explanations were valid, the procedure under Section 148A was not followed. Secondly, the assumption of jurisdiction was based on 'reason to believe' which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Thirdly, 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 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 the Act, was a legislative amendment. The Court also found that even if the Explanations were valid, they did not cover Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under 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, strictly complying with the law.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and thus 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 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 distinct and made by the legislature itself. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were bad in law as they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for assessment years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the 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 assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It was noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act. 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 of the Act, which empowers revenue to reopen subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A. The procedure under Section 148A had not been followed. Furthermore, 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 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 High Courts of Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding 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 submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was distinct and its amendments were made by the legislature itself. The Court further held 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, as the 'reason to believe' clause, which was no longer recognized, was the basis for assumption of jurisdiction, and the procedure under Section 148A had not been followed. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years prior to 2015-2016. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions 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 substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended provisions, was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court found that the Explanations did not cover the erstwhile Section 147, which empowers revenue to reopen subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A. Therefore, even if the Explanations were valid, the procedure under Section 148A was not followed, rendering the notices invalid. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or any subsequent year. 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 law.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020, was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act contained such amendments. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because they failed to comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act. Specifically, the assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also 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 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 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 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 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. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was 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. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because they did not comply with the amended Section 147 (which removed the 'reason to believe' condition) and 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. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision concerning 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 distinct from Section 3. 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's 'reason to believe' criterion, which is no longer recognized under the amended Section 147. Additionally, the mandatory procedure under Section 148A of the amended Act was 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.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and void. The Court agreed with the 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, 1961. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act dealt with amendments made by the legislature. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' clause from the erstwhile Section 147, which is no longer a valid basis under the amended provisions. Additionally, the mandatory 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 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 relevant amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the 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, unlike Section 4 which did amend 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 is 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 held that 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 impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a 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 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 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. The 'reason to believe' concept, used in the notices, is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory requirements. The Court was in respectful agreement with the views of the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras High Courts on this matter.

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 merely a provision for relaxing time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such amendments were made by the Legislature itself under Section 4 of the Relaxation Act. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were invalid because the Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is obsolete under the amended Section 147, and crucially, the mandatory procedure under Section 148A had not been 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 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. 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. The Court further held that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were bad in law because they were issued on the basis of the erstwhile Section 147 ('reason to believe') and did not comply with the amended Section 147 and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Additionally, the Court found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or any subsequent year. Consequently, all the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were given liberty 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, 1948, was a provision for relaxation of time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It distinguished Section 3 from Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, noting that Section 4 was the provision that amended the Act. The Court found that the Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction based on the repealed concept of 'reason to believe' under Section 147 and had failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147, including 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, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

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 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 merely a relaxation provision for time limits and did not grant the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. This power was not delegated to the Central Government, unlike the amendments made by the Legislature itself under Section 4 of the Relaxation Act. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 amended the Act. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147's 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the mandatory procedure under Section 148A, which is part of the amended provisions (Sections 148 to 153), was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

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 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; such amendments were made by the legislature itself under Section 4. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations were invalid; (b) even if the Explanations were valid, they did not cover Section 147, and the procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A was not followed; (c) the 'reason to believe' standard, no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, was the basis for issuing the notices; 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 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 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 which was a legislative amendment. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 amended the Act. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the notices were bad in law as they did not comply with the amended Section 147 (which replaced 'reason to believe' with a new regime) and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also held that 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 of applicability of Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. The Court was in respectful agreement with the views of the Allahabad, Rajasthan, Delhi, and Madras High Courts. 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 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. 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 invalid because 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 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 Nos. 20/2021 and 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, which falls under Chapter II titled ‘Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act’, only deals with time limits and does not grant power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Such amendments, if any, were to be made by the legislature itself, as seen in Section 4 of the Relaxation Act. Furthermore, even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices would still be invalid because they did not 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 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 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 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 further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were bad in law because they were issued based on the erstwhile Section 147's 'reason to believe' and failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147, including 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 relevant amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee'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 this was done by the legislature itself, not delegated to the Central Government. The Court further held 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 and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years prior to 2015-2016, rendering the notifications inapplicable for those 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, 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 confer power 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. Furthermore, the Court found that the impugned notices were invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which no longer recognized the concept of 'reason to believe' for assumption of jurisdiction, and failed to follow the procedure under Section 148A. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and 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 petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not grant the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Such amendments were made by the legislature itself under Section 4 of the Relaxation Act. The Court found that the Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which was no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, and had failed to comply with the procedure under Section 148A. Furthermore, 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 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 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 amendments to substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, which was the domain of Section 4. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they were issued based on the erstwhile 'reason to believe' criterion under Section 147, which was no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the mandatory procedure under Section 148A, which is part of the amended provisions (Sections 148 to 153), 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 granted liberty 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 are ultra vires and consequently bad in law and null 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 substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4 which was a legislative amendment. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law as they failed to comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, which requires adherence to Section 148A and abandons the 'reason to believe' criterion. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements. The Court relied on decisions from the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court, and Madras High Court.

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 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. The Court found that the Explanations sought to extend the applicability of erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151, but crucially, did not cover Section 147, which empowers reopening subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Since this procedure was not followed, the impugned notices were invalid. Additionally, the Court noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside, 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. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct and made by the legislature itself. The Court further held that the impugned notices were bad in law because they were issued based on the repealed 'reason to believe' concept under Section 147 and failed to comply with the procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years, as the time limits for issuing notices for these years were not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act was applicable. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the 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 assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was distinct from Section 3. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were bad in law because they failed to comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, which no longer uses the 'reason to believe' criterion and necessitates adherence to Section 148A. Additionally, the Court held 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 its procedures.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was made by the Legislature itself. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations to the notifications were invalid; (b) even if the Explanations were valid, they did not cover Section 147, and the procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A was not followed; (c) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to the assessment years in question. Consequently, all the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Court allowed the Assessing Officers 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 ratio decidendi is that notifications seeking to revive repealed provisions of the Income Tax Act without legislative backing are invalid, and reassessment proceedings must strictly adhere to the amended statutory framework.

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 is a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and does 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 considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because they did not comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act. Specifically, the notices were based on the 'reason to believe' criterion, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable 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 procedures.

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 relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act contained such amendments. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which does not recognize the concept of 'reason to believe,' and 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 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, 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 amendments to substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act amended the Act. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid because 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 concept of 'reason to believe' used by the Assessing Officers was also no longer recognized under the amended Section 147. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submissions that the Explanations sought to give effect to the repealed provisions of Sections 148, 149, and 151 without a proper saving clause, unlike the saving clause provided for in Section 297 of the Act concerning the repeal of the 1922 Act. The Court also noted that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which deals with relaxation of certain provisions, falls under Chapter II, while Section 4, which makes amendments to the Act, falls under Chapter III. It was held that Section 3 did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Act. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still bad in law as they did not comply with the amended Section 147 and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also observed that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory 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 only 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 even if the Explanations were considered valid, they did not cover the erstwhile Section 147 of the Act, 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 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 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 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 invalid because they were issued based on the repealed 'reason to believe' clause under Section 147 and failed to comply with the mandatory procedure under the amended 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 relevant 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 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 provision for relaxing time limits and did not grant power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended provisions, was distinct. The Court found that the Explanations sought to revive repealed provisions and extend their applicability, which was beyond the scope of Section 3. Furthermore, even if the Explanations were valid, the notices were invalid because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' principle (erstwhile Section 147) 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 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 a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was distinct. Furthermore, even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because they did not comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, specifically the requirement to follow the procedure under Section 148A, and the concept of 'reason to believe' was no longer applicable. 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 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 merely a relaxation provision for time limits and did not authorize amendments to the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that introduced amendments. The Court found that the impugned notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover the erstwhile Section 147, which was crucial for assuming jurisdiction; (b) the notices were based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; (c) the procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years from 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 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 or revive repealed provisions. It distinguished Section 3 from Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did involve amendments made by the legislature. 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 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; (c) the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to certain assessment years. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Court permitted 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, bad in law, and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' contention that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was made by the legislature itself. The Court found that the reassessment notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations to the notifications were ultra vires; (b) the notices were issued based on the repealed 'reason to believe' requirement under Section 147, without complying with the amended Section 147 and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A; and (c) 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 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 of the same Act. The Court found that the Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction based on the erstwhile Section 147's '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 in 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 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 them.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the Explanations sought to give effect to the erstwhile provisions of Sections 148, 149, and 151, but not Section 147. Consequently, the notices issued under Section 148 were invalid because they were based on the repealed provisions and did not comply with the amended Section 147, which requires adherence to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years. 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 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 a relaxation provision for time limits and did not amend the 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 empowers reopening subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A. Consequently, even if the Explanations were valid, the procedure under Section 148A had not been followed, rendering the notices invalid. The Court also held 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. The Court, in respectful agreement with various High Courts, quashed and set aside all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. 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. No issue was expressly left undecided.

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' 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 or revive substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court found that the Explanations sought to extend the applicability of erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151 but did not cover Section 147. Consequently, the notices issued were invalid as they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which requires compliance with Section 148A, and the 'reason to believe' clause, which is no longer recognized. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to AY 2015-2016 onwards. 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 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 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 revive repealed 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 notices were still bad in law because the Assessing Officers assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' criterion, which is no longer recognized under the amended Section 147. Additionally, 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 amended provisions of the Act.