Bombay High Court Judgments — 2022

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 are ultra vires and therefore 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 Chapter II titled ‘Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act’, only deals with relaxation of 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 the Income Tax Act, falls under Chapter III and 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, even if the Explanations were valid, the procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. All impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were bad in law and liable to be quashed. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision concerning time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend or revive substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that made legislative amendments. The Court found that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021, which sought to extend the applicability of the erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151, were ultra vires and thus void. Furthermore, the Court held that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid because they failed to comply with the amended Section 147, specifically the requirement of Section 148A, and were based on the 'reason to believe' concept no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years 2015-2016 and onwards. Consequently, all the 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 Bombay 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 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, 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. Therefore, even if the Explanations were valid, the procedure under Section 148A had not been followed, rendering the notices invalid. Additionally, the Court held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or any subsequent year because the time limits for issuing notices for these years were not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act was applicable. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, allowing the Revenue to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 are ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020, deals only with the relaxation of 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 makes amendments, was legislated directly by Parliament. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147 of the Act, which requires compliance with Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act is not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory procedures.

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 provision for relaxing time limits and did not grant the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was enacted by the legislature itself, unlike Section 3 which allowed for delegated power through notifications. The Court found that the impugned notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations were ultra vires; (b) the notices were based on the concept of 'reason to believe' which is no longer in the amended Section 147; (c) the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards, meaning the time limits for these years could not be extended. 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 that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision for time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4 which contained legislative amendments. The Court found that the Explanations sought to revive repealed provisions without legislative backing. Furthermore, even if the Explanations were considered valid, they did not cover Section 147, and the procedure under the amended Section 147, including 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, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act, and no such power was delegated to the Central Government under Section 3. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because the Assessing Officers had not complied with the amended Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A. The 'reason to believe' criterion, used in the erstwhile Section 147, was no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the Court noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter II titled ‘Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act’, was a provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under Chapter III titled ‘Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961’, amended the Act. The Court found that the Explanations in Notifications No. 20 of 2021 and 38 of 2021 sought to give effect to the erstwhile Sections 148, 149, and 151 but did not cover Section 147. Consequently, the Assessing Officers could not assume jurisdiction based on the old 'reason to believe' concept, and the procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed. Furthermore, the Court held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Therefore, the Explanations to the notifications were declared ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. 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 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not 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 the impugned 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 that the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or 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 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, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision for time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act; only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act did so. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover Section 147, which empowers reassessment subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A; (b) the procedure under Section 148A was not followed; (c) the assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. 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, 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, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to revive repealed substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. 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 invalid because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' principle from the erstwhile Section 147, which is no longer applicable, 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 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires 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. The Court found that the notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations sought to revive repealed provisions without legislative backing; (b) the 'reason to believe' criterion, no longer recognized in amended Section 147, was the basis for issuing the notices; (c) the mandatory procedure under Section 148A 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. 20/2021 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 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 the impugned notices were bad in law for non-compliance with the amended Section 147, which no longer recognizes the concept of 'reason to believe', and for failing to follow the procedure under Section 148A. Additionally, the Court held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years, as the time limits for these years did not fall within the scope of Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act or revive repealed sections. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct from Section 3. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for several reasons: (a) they were based on repealed provisions, (b) they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which no longer recognized the 'reason to believe' concept, and (c) the procedure under Section 148A, which is part of the amended Sections 148 to 153, was not followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years, as the time limits for issuing notices for these years were not expiring within the period of applicability of Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act. Consequently, all impugned notices 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' submission 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. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act dealt with amendments made by the legislature itself. The Court found that the Explanations did not cover Section 147 of the Act, and even if they were valid, the procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A had not been followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory provisions.

The 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. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because the Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Additionally, the mandatory procedure under Section 148A, which is part of Sections 148 to 153, had not been followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 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 the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct. The Court found that the notices were also bad in law for non-compliance with the amended Section 147, which no longer uses the 'reason to believe' basis, and for failing to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

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, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law 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 amended Section 147 is subject to Sections 148 to 153, which include the procedure in Section 148A, a procedure that was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, 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, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was made by the legislature itself. The Court found that the Assessing Officers' assumption of jurisdiction was based on the '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, 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, 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 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 amended certain provisions, was distinct. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover Section 147, which requires compliance with Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A; (b) the assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; and (c) the Relaxation Act was not applicable for 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 issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the procedure.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires, 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; only Section 4 did so. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons. Firstly, they relied on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Secondly, the procedure under the amended Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153 (including Section 148A), was not followed. Thirdly, the Relaxation Act was not applicable to AY 2015-2016 and subsequent years as the time limit for issuing notices under Section 148 for those 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 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 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 revive repealed provisions without legislative backing. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer part of the amended Section 147, and because the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision for time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act was the provision that amended the Act. 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 and the procedure under Section 148A, which was mandatory. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, after strictly complying with the statutory requirements.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification 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 dealing with time limits and did not empower amendments to 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 invalid for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover Section 147, which empowers reopening subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A; (b) the Assessing Officers assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; and (c) the procedure under Section 148A was not followed. Additionally, the Court noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, 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 submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the power to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act made such amendments. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' criterion, 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 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 and therefore null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's contention that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was legislatively enacted. The Court found that the Explanations did not cover Section 147, and even if they were valid, the procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed. Additionally, the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years from 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 petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended the Act, was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court found that the Explanations did not cover Section 147 of the Act, and even if they were valid, the procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A, which requires compliance with Sections 148 to 153, had not been 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 provisions of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, strictly complying with the statutory provisions.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under the chapter titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act', was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which amended provisions of the Income Tax Act, was in a different chapter and was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because they did not comply with the amended Section 147 and the procedural requirements of 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 law. 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. 20/2021 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. Such amendments were made by the Legislature itself under Section 4 of the Relaxation Act. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were valid, the impugned notices were bad in law as 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 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to assessment years prior to 2015-2016. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. 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 Section 3 of the Relaxation Act falls under Chapter II, titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act,' and deals with time limits. In contrast, Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, falling under Chapter III, 'Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961,' makes substantive amendments. The Court agreed with the assessee that Section 3 did not envisage amendments to the substantive provisions of the Act. The Court further found that even if the Explanations in the notifications were considered valid, the impugned notices were bad in law because they did not comply with the amended Section 147, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The 'reason to believe' standard, used in the erstwhile Section 147, was also no longer recognized. Additionally, the Court noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and 38/2021 were declared ultra vires, null, and void. 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 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not 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 for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover Section 147 of the Act, which is subject to Sections 148 to 153 (including Section 148A); (b) the Assessing Officers assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; and (c) the procedure under Section 148A was not followed. Additionally, the Court held that 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 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 Bombay 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 substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was distinct and did not delegate such amendment power. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid as they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' concept from the repealed Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under the chapter titled ‘Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act’, was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. In contrast, Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, falling under the chapter titled ‘Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961’, was the provision that amended the Act. The Court agreed with the assessee that Section 3 did not envisage amendments to substantive provisions. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations in the notifications were considered valid, they did not cover the erstwhile Section 147 of the Act, which is crucial for assuming jurisdiction. The Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction based on the '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, including the procedure under Section 148A, which was not followed. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were declared ultra vires, bad in law, null, and void. 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 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 are ultra vires, bad in law, and therefore null and void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision for time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act amended the Act. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is not part of the amended Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. Additionally, the Court noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 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 ratio decidendi is that legislative power to amend substantive tax laws cannot be delegated to the executive through relaxation provisions, and procedural compliances mandated by the amended law must be followed for valid reassessment.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification Nos. 20/2021 and 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under the chapter titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act,' was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct. The Court found that the notices were also invalid 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. Furthermore, 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.

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 and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, and therefore, bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a provision for relaxing time limits and did not grant the Central Government the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend provisions, was distinct from Section 3. The Court further held that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because the Assessing Officers had not complied with the amended Section 147 of the Act (which requires compliance with Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A) and had relied on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 and subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant 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 were 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 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 was the provision that amended the Act, and it did not delegate amendment powers to the Central Government. The Court further held that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid because they were issued based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside, with liberty to the Assessing Officers to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20 of 2021 and Notification No. 38 of 2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners' submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, unlike Section 4. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover the erstwhile Section 147, which empowered the revenue to reopen subject to Sections 148 to 153, including Section 148A; (b) the assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; and (c) the procedure under Section 148A was not followed. Additionally, the Court held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or any subsequent year, 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 Court allowed the Assessing Officers 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 void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Act, unlike Section 4 which did. 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 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 were ultra vires, bad in law, and null and void. The Court agreed with the petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was solely a relaxation provision for time limits and did not grant the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. It noted that Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which did amend the Act, was distinct and did not delegate amendment powers to the Central Government. The Court found that the impugned notices were invalid for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover Section 147, which empowers reopening subject to Sections 148 to 153 (including Section 148A); (b) the 'reason to believe' criterion, no longer recognized in the amended Section 147, was the basis for assumption of jurisdiction; and (c) the procedure under Section 148A was not followed. 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 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. 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 valid, the impugned notices were still bad in law because the Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized under the amended Section 147. Moreover, the mandatory procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or subsequent years. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Act, strictly complying with the law.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires the Relaxation Act and therefore bad in law and void. The Court reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act falls under a chapter titled ‘Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act’ and deals with time limits, whereas Section 4, which amends the Income Tax Act, falls under a different chapter. The legislature did not delegate the power to amend substantive provisions of the Act to the Central Government through Section 3. Furthermore, even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still bad in law because the Assessing Officers assumed jurisdiction based on the repealed 'reason to believe' concept under Section 147 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 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, 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; only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act did so. The Court found that the impugned notices were bad in law for multiple reasons: (a) the Explanations did not cover the erstwhile Section 147, which empowers revenue to reopen, and thus the assumption of jurisdiction was flawed; (b) the amended Section 147 is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A, which was not followed; (c) there was no saving clause for the applicability of erstwhile Sections 147 to 151, unlike Section 297 of the Act which provided for the 1922 Act; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or any subsequent year 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 after strictly complying with the same.

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 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 distinct and made by the legislature itself. The Court further held that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were invalid because the Assessing Officer's assumption of jurisdiction was based on the repealed 'reason to believe' concept, and the mandatory procedure under the amended Section 147 and Section 148A was not followed. Additionally, the Court found that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant 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 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 amendments to substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act, which was the domain of 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. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officers was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147. Furthermore, the Court noted that the amended Section 147 is subject to Sections 148 to 153, including the procedure under Section 148A, which was not followed. The Court also held that the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Accordingly, 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 void. The Court agreed with the assessee's submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not empower the Central Government to amend substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Only Section 4 of the Relaxation Act contained such amendments. 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 in 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 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 submission that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was a relaxation provision dealing with time limits and did not grant the Central Government the power to amend the substantive provisions of the Income Tax Act. Such amendments were only permissible under Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which was enacted by the legislature itself. The Court further found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were still invalid because the Assessing Officers did not follow the amended Section 147 and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside, 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 reasoned that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under the chapter 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act,' was intended for relaxing time limits and did not grant the Central Government the power to amend substantive provisions or revive repealed sections of the Income Tax Act. In contrast, Section 4 of the Relaxation Act, which falls under 'Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961,' was the section that made legislative amendments. The Court agreed with the petitioners that only Section 4 amended the Act, and Section 3 did not envisage such amendments. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the Explanations were considered valid, the notices were still invalid because they failed to comply with the amended Section 147 (which no longer uses 'reason to believe') and the mandatory procedure under Section 148A. The Court also noted that the Relaxation Act was not applicable to the assessment years in question. Consequently, all impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant amended provisions of the Act.

The High Court held that the Explanations to Notification No. 20/2021 and Notification No. 38/2021 were ultra vires and therefore bad in law and null and void. The court agreed with the 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 even if the Explanations were considered valid, the impugned notices were bad in law because the Assessing Officers had assumed jurisdiction 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. Additionally, 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 reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions.

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 petitioners that Section 3 of the Relaxation Act was solely 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 was the provision that amended the Act. 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 the erstwhile Section 147, and the procedure under the amended Section 147, including Section 148A, was not followed; (c) the assumption of jurisdiction was based on the 'reason to believe' concept, which is no longer recognized in the amended Section 147; and (d) the Relaxation Act was not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards. Consequently, all the impugned notices issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officers were permitted to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant amended provisions of the Act.