Rajasthan High Court Judgments — 2022

The Tribunal held that for any action of issuing a notice under Section 148 after 01.04.2021, the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, would apply. The extended time limits under Section 149(1)(b) cannot be pressed into service for reopening assessments for past periods. This is based on the plain meaning of the first proviso to Section 149(1), which prevents revival of time-barred notices. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT in its notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 were unconstitutional and invalid. These explanations, which sought to clarify that the provisions as they stood on 31.03.2021 would apply for issuing notices under Section 148, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction of the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and could not amend the provisions of the parent Act. Consequently, the impugned notices were found to be invalid and bad in law. The ratio is that notices issued after 01.04.2021 must strictly follow the new procedure under Section 148A, and subordinate legislation cannot override statutory provisions or extend time limits for past periods contrary to the statute. The notices were quashed and set aside.

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted the submission made by the petitioner's counsel that the issue involved was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. In that precedent, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this binding precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a precedent exists where similar notices under Section 148 have been quashed for being invalid, then subsequent similar notices should also be quashed.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that precedent, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Applying the ratio decidendi of the Sudesh Taneja case, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner. The petition was allowed. No specific amount in dispute was recorded. No issues were left undecided.

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the same court had already decided the matter in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. In that precedent, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this binding precedent, the Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that notices issued under Section 148, when identical to those previously quashed by a Division Bench of the same High Court, are to be similarly treated and quashed.

The High Court, in its order dated March 24, 2022, allowed the writ petition. The Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that precedent, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this decision, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible in law for the same reasons. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a precedent exists where similar notices under Section 148 have been quashed as invalid, subsequent similar notices should also be quashed.

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court on January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions). In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible in law for the reasons stated in the earlier judgment. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. In that precedent-setting decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Applying the ratio decidendi of the Sudesh Taneja case, the High Court found the impugned notice in the present case to be similarly invalid. Therefore, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch) on January 27, 2022. In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner in the present case for the same reasons. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue regarding the validity of Section 148 notices has been decided by a coordinate bench, subsequent petitions raising the same issue should be decided in line with the precedent.

The Tribunal, following the ratio of Sudesh Taneja vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors., held that notices issued after April 1, 2021, must be in accordance with the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, including the procedure under Section 148A. The Court found that the explanations in the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, were unconstitutional and invalid. This was because the subordinate legislation (CBDT notifications) exceeded the powers vested in the Central Government by the parent Act (Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020). The Court reasoned that a subordinate legislation cannot amend the provisions of a parent Act. Consequently, the impugned notices were declared invalid and quashed. The Court explicitly stated that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on April 1, 2021, and could not be deferred by the notifications. The writ petition was allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer on January 27, 2022. In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were held to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible for the same reasons. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a precedent from a Division Bench of the same High Court has already decided an issue regarding the validity of Section 148 notices, subsequent similar notices should be quashed based on that precedent.

The High Court held that in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which relied on the Division Bench's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., the impugned notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was also invalid and impermissible in law. The Court found the reasons stated in the earlier order to be applicable to the present case. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior Division Bench decision has declared notices under Section 148 to be invalid, subsequent similar notices should also be quashed on the same grounds. No specific issue was left undecided.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. In that precedent-setting judgment, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Applying the ratio of the Sudesh Taneja case, the High Court found the impugned notice issued to the petitioner to be similarly invalid. Therefore, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court on January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions). In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case, for the reasons stated in the earlier order, was also quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed, and the notice was quashed. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the issue was no longer res integra, citing the Division Bench decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Applying the same reasoning, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on 27.01.2022 in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions). In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue regarding the validity of Section 148 notices has been decided by a coordinate bench, subsequent similar notices should be quashed based on that precedent.

The Tribunal held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, as it had been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued in the present case for the same reasons. The petition was accordingly allowed. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, and no other issues were expressly left undecided.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch) on January 27, 2022. In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner in the present case. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue has been decided by a higher bench of the same court, subsequent petitions raising the same issue should be decided in line with the precedent, leading to the quashing of the impugned notices.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on 27.01.2022. In that precedent-setting decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Applying the ratio decidendi of the Sudesh Taneja case, the High Court found the impugned notice in the present case to be similarly invalid. Therefore, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that the issue involved in the present writ petition was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. In that precedent, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Applying the ratio decidendi of the Sudesh Taneja case, the High Court found the impugned notice issued to Ashoka Industries to be similarly invalid. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, as it had been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the same court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). The Division Bench had previously ruled that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. Applying this precedent, the High Court found the impugned notice issued to the petitioner to be similarly invalid. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and the allowance of the petition.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Applying this precedent, the High Court found the impugned notice in the present case to be similarly invalid. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a precedent from a coordinate bench has settled a legal issue, subsequent cases with identical issues should follow that precedent. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the issue was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. In that precedent-setting decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were held to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this established legal position, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued to the petitioner was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been issued in contravention of established legal principles as laid down by a Division Bench of the High Court, such a notice is liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, held that the issue involved in the petition was no longer res integra. It was guided by the decision of the Division Bench of the same Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., where notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Applying the same reasoning and precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued in the present case. The petition was allowed on the basis of the prior judgment. No other issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel had submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (and batch of petitions). In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued to the petitioner in the present case was also invalid and impermissible in law. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior Division Bench decision has declared notices under Section 148 invalid, subsequent similar notices should also be quashed.

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. In view of this submission and the prior ruling, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible for the same reasons. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court Division Bench has already ruled on the invalidity of Section 148 notices based on specific grounds, subsequent identical notices should also be quashed following that precedent.

The Tribunal held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. The Division Bench in that case had found notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. Following this precedent, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner in the present case. The petition was allowed based on the reasoning provided in the Sudesh Taneja judgment. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been held to be invalid by a higher court, similar notices should be quashed.

The High Court held that for any action of issuing a notice under Section 148 after April 1, 2021, the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, would apply. The extended period available in the substituted Section 149(1)(b) cannot be used for reopening assessments for past periods if the notice was time-barred prior to April 1, 2021, as per the provisions prevailing then. This is based on the plain meaning of the first proviso to Section 149(1). The Court further held that the explanations in the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. These explanations, which provided that for the purpose of issuing notice under Section 148, the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, would apply, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction of the CBDT as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act. Consequently, the impugned notices were found to be invalid and bad in law. The writ petition was allowed, and the notices were quashed and set aside.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. In that earlier decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner in the present case for the same reasons. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue regarding the validity of Section 148 notices has been decided by a coordinate bench, subsequent petitions raising the same issue should follow that precedent. The operative direction was to quash and set aside the notice and allow the petition.

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that the issue involved in the present case was no longer res integra, as it had been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on 27.01.2022. In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that the issue involved in the present writ petition was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that precedent, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Applying the ratio decidendi of the Sudesh Taneja case, the High Court found the impugned notice issued to the petitioner to be similarly invalid. Therefore, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on 27.01.2022 in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions). In that earlier decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue regarding the validity of Section 148 notices has been decided by a coordinate bench, subsequent petitions raising the same issue should be decided in line with the precedent.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, as it had been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the same Court. The Court referred to its earlier decision dated January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions). In that judgment, the Court had found notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued in the present case. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court has already ruled on the validity of notices under Section 148 based on specific grounds, subsequent similar notices can be quashed based on that precedent without re-examining the merits. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, as it had been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the same court in its decision dated January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). The ratio decidendi of the Sudesh Taneja judgment was that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were accordingly quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner. The petition was allowed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) on January 27, 2022. In that judgment, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case, for the same reasons stated in the Sudesh Taneja judgment, was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been held to be invalid and impermissible by a coordinate bench on specific grounds, subsequent similar notices should also be quashed on the same basis, without requiring a fresh adjudication of the merits of the notice itself.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. In that precedent, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this binding precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been issued in contravention of established legal principles as laid down by a Division Bench of the High Court, such a notice is liable to be quashed.

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on 27.01.2022 in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions). In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible in law. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

The High Court held that for any action of issuing a notice under Section 148 after 01.04.2021, the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, would apply. The mere extension of time limits for issuing notice under Section 148 would not change this position. The extended period available in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 cannot be pressed into service for reopening assessments for past periods, as per the first proviso to Section 149(1). Notices that had become time-barred prior to 01.04.2021 would not be revived. The Court further held that the explanations introduced by CBDT in notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021, which sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, plainly exceeded the CBDT's jurisdiction as subordinate legislation and were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court followed the ratio of the Sudesh Taneja judgment, finding the impugned notices to be invalid and bad in law. The notices were quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that for any action of issuing a notice under Section 148 after April 1, 2021, the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, would apply. It reasoned that there was no indication that past provisions would continue to apply after substitution, and strong indications to the contrary existed, particularly the first proviso to Section 149(1), which prevents revival of time-barred notices. The Tribunal further held that the explanations in the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. It reasoned that the CBDT, in issuing these explanations, exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation, as the parent Act only authorized extending time limits, not altering statutory provisions through explanations. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned notices were invalid and bad in law, quashing and setting them aside. The writ petition was allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed. The ratio is that reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021, must follow the new procedure under the Finance Act, 2021, and subordinate legislation cannot override statutory provisions.

The High Court held that any action of issuing a notice under Section 148 after 01.04.2021 must be in accordance with the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The court found no indication that the past provisions would continue to apply after substitution, and strong indications to the contrary. The first proviso to Section 149(1) clearly states that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021 if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. Therefore, the extended period available in the newly substituted clause (b) of Section 149(1) cannot be pressed into service for reopening assessments for past periods. Furthermore, the court declared the explanations in the CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 as unconstitutional and invalid. The court reasoned that these explanations, by providing that the pre-amended Section 149 provisions would apply, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction of the CBDT as a subordinate legislation and could not amend the parent Act. Consequently, the impugned notices were held to be invalid and bad in law. The writ petition was allowed, and the notices were quashed and set aside.

The Tribunal held that notices of reassessment issued after April 1, 2021, must strictly adhere to the newly introduced provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, including the procedure under Section 148A. The court found no legislative intent to suggest that the old scheme of reopening assessments would continue to apply to notices issued after April 1, 2021. The first proviso to Section 149(1) was interpreted to mean that notices issued after April 1, 2021, cannot revive time-barred assessments from past periods by resorting to the extended limitation periods under the new Section 149(1)(b). Consequently, any notice issued after April 1, 2021, without following the procedure in Section 148A, is invalid. Regarding the CBDT notifications, the court held that the explanations introduced by them, attempting to apply the pre-amendment provisions of Section 149, exceeded the delegated powers granted under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Such subordinate legislation cannot amend the parent Act or override its plain statutory meaning. Therefore, these explanations were declared unconstitutional and invalid. The impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The writ petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notice/s.

The High Court held that for any action of issuing a notice under Section 148 after April 1, 2021, the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, would apply. The court found no indication that the past provisions would continue to apply after the substitution. The first proviso to Section 149(1) was crucial, indicating that notices which had become time-barred prior to April 1, 2021, would not be revived by the application of the new Section 149(1)(b). Therefore, notices issued after April 1, 2021, without following the procedure under Section 148A, are invalid. Regarding the CBDT notifications, the court held that they were unconstitutional and invalid. The notifications, by introducing an explanation that the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, would apply for issuing notices under Section 148, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction granted by the parent Act. Subordinate legislation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act. The court disagreed with the view that the notifications deferred the application of the new reassessment provisions. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The writ petition was allowed.

The High Court held that for any action of issuing a notice under Section 148 after April 1, 2021, the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, would apply. The mere extension of time limits for issuing notice under Section 148 would not change this legal position. Under no circumstances can the extended period available in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 (10 years instead of 6 years) be pressed into service for reopening assessments for past periods. This is derived from the plain meaning of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 149, which states that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before April 1, 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, a notice that had become time-barred prior to April 1, 2021, as per the then prevailing provisions, would not be revived by virtue of the application of Section 149(1)(b) effective from April 1, 2021. Furthermore, the Court held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT in its notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. These explanations, which provided that for the purposes of issuance of notice under Section 148, the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, shall apply, plainly exceeded the jurisdiction of the subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested in the Government of India by the parent Act. Therefore, the impugned notices were held to be invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside the notices and all consequential proceedings.

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. In that precedent-setting decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Applying the ratio of the Sudesh Taneja case, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued to the petitioner was also invalid and impermissible. Therefore, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been held to be invalid and impermissible by a higher bench of the same court, subsequent similar notices should also be quashed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel had submitted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that precedent, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this binding precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible in law. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the issue was no longer res integra due to the Division Bench's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), where notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were quashed. Applying the ratio decidendi of the Sudesh Taneja case, the Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible in law. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. No other issues were decided.

The High Court allowed the petition. Following its own Division Bench decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., the Court held that the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid and impermissible in law. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside. The ratio decidendi is that if a precedent from a higher bench of the same court has settled an issue, subsequent benches are bound to follow it. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition, providing relief to the assessee.

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the issue was squarely covered by the Division Bench's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. In that precedent, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Applying the same reasoning and precedent to the present case, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

The High Court held that the issue involved in the petition was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) on 27.01.2022. In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Applying the ratio of the Sudesh Taneja judgment to the present case, the Court found the impugned notice to be invalid. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the present case was quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed.

The High Court, following its earlier decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) dated January 27, 2022, held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and impermissible in law. The Court found that the issue was no longer res integra. Consequently, the impugned notice issued to the petitioner, Superfine Hotels Private Limited, was quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed based on the precedent established in the Sudesh Taneja case. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been held to be invalid by a coordinate bench, similar notices should also be quashed.