Loading High Court cases…
679 orders · Page 5 of 14
The Tribunal held that the new reassessment provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, are applicable to any notice issued after April 1, 2021. The Court reasoned that the substitution of provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, repealed the old provisions, and unless a different intention was evident, the repealed provisions would not revive. The Court found no indication in the statutory scheme that the old provisions would continue to apply after substitution. Furthermore, the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act indicated that notices issued after April 1, 2021, must adhere to the substituted Section 149(1) without breaching the original time limits. The Court also declared the explanations in the CBDT circulars dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as unconstitutional and invalid, stating that the CBDT exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law. The ratio is that reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021, must comply with the new provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, and CBDT circulars cannot override statutory provisions.
The Tribunal held that the new reassessment provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, were applicable to all notices issued after April 1, 2021. It reasoned that the substitution of provisions under the General Clauses Act, 1897, meant the old provisions stood repealed and had no existence post-substitution, unless a different intention was apparent. The Court found no indication that the legislature intended the new scheme to apply only to periods post-April 1, 2021; rather, there were strong indications to the contrary, such as the modified time limits in Section 149 and the first proviso to Section 149(1). Therefore, notices issued after April 1, 2021, must follow the new provisions. Regarding the CBDT circulars, the Tribunal held that they were unconstitutional and invalid. It reasoned that the power under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits, not to issuing explanations that altered the basis of statutory provisions. The circulars exceeded the delegated powers and could not amend the parent Act. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the notices impugned in the writ petition were invalid and bad in law. The Court agreed with the co-ordinate bench's decision in Sudesh Tanesh Vs. Income Tax Officer. Regarding the first issue, the Court reasoned that the original provisions of Section 148 stood repealed upon substitution by the Finance Act, 2021. Unless a different intention appeared, the repeal would not revive anything not in force. The Court found no indication in the new scheme that the past provisions would continue to apply. The Court noted that the first proviso to Section 149(1) indicated that notices issued after April 1, 2021, must be in accordance with the substituted provisions, and the extended time limits under the new Section 149(1)(b) could not be pressed into service for past periods if the notice had become time-barred prior to April 1, 2021. Regarding the second issue, the Court held that the explanations in the CBDT circulars dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that these explanations, issued under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, exceeded the delegated power by attempting to alter the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act. The Court found that the subordinate legislation could not travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and could not amend the parent Act under the guise of clarification. Consequently, the notices were quashed and set aside.
The Tribunal held that the new reassessment provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, are applicable to any notice issued after April 1, 2021, irrespective of the assessment year. The Court reasoned that the substitution of provisions implies the repeal of the old ones, and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, does not revive repealed provisions unless a different intention appears. The Court found no indication in the Finance Act, 2021, that the old provisions would continue to apply. Specifically, the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the substituted provisions was interpreted to mean that notices issued after April 1, 2021, must adhere to the new scheme, without reviving time-barred assessments under the old law. Regarding the CBDT circulars, the Court held that they were invalid as they exceeded the delegated power granted by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The circulars attempted to alter the statutory provisions by way of clarification, which is impermissible for subordinate legislation. Therefore, the notices issued were quashed and set aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that notices of re-assessment issued after April 1, 2021, must comply with the newly introduced provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, including the procedure under Section 148A and the time limits under Section 149. The Court found no indication that the past provisions would continue to apply after the substitution. The first proviso to Section 149(1) was interpreted to mean that notices issued after April 1, 2021, cannot be issued for past assessment years by resorting to the extended period available in the newly substituted clause (b) of Section 149(1) if such notice was already time-barred under the old provisions. Regarding the CBDT notifications, the Court held that the explanations provided therein, stating that pre-amendment provisions would apply for Section 148 notices, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that these explanations, as subordinate legislation, exceeded the powers delegated by the parent Act and attempted to alter the statutory provisions. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside. The operative direction was to quash the notice. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the new reassessment provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from April 1, 2021, were applicable to all notices issued after that date, irrespective of the assessment year. The Court reasoned that the substitution of provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, meant the old provisions stood repealed and had no existence thereafter, unless a different intention was evident. The Court found no such intention and, in fact, noted indications to the contrary, such as the modified time limits in Section 149. The first proviso to Section 149(1) was crucial, indicating that notices issued after April 1, 2021, would be governed by the substituted Section 149(1) but without breaching the upper time limits of the original Section 149(1). The Court further held that the explanations in the CBDT circulars dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. These explanations, by attempting to apply the pre-amendment provisions for issuing notices, exceeded the delegated power granted under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, and were contrary to the plain meaning of the statutory provisions. Consequently, the notices impugned in the petitions were quashed and set aside as invalid and bad in law. The Tribunal agreed with the co-ordinate bench's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer.
The Tribunal held that the substituted provisions for reassessment under the Finance Act, 2021, would apply to any notice issued after April 1, 2021, irrespective of the assessment year. It reasoned that upon substitution, the original provisions stood repealed and had no existence. The Court referred to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to support this. The Tribunal found no indication in the scheme of the Finance Act, 2021, that the old provisions would continue to apply. Specifically, the first proviso to Section 149(1) indicated that notices issued after April 1, 2021, would be in terms of the substituted Section 149(1) but without breaching the upper time limit provided in the original Section 149(1). Regarding the CBDT circulars, the Tribunal held that the explanations provided in them were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing explanations that sought to alter the plain meaning of the statutory provisions of the parent Act. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned notices were invalid and bad in law and were therefore quashed and set aside. The judgment in Sudesh Taneja (supra) was applied mutatis mutandis.
The Tribunal held that the new reassessment provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, are applicable to all notices issued after April 1, 2021, irrespective of the assessment year. The Court reasoned that the old provisions stood repealed upon substitution and had no existence thereafter, citing Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court found no indication in the new provisions that the old scheme would continue to apply. Furthermore, the Court held that the explanations in the CBDT circulars dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the CBDT, as a subordinate legislation, exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing explanations that sought to alter the plain meaning of the statutory provisions and travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act (Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020). The Court quashed and set aside the impugned notices as invalid and bad in law. The writ petition was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the new reassessment provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, with effect from April 1, 2021, applied to all notices issued after that date, irrespective of the assessment year. The court reasoned that the substitution of provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, repealed the old provisions, and unless a different intention was evident, the old provisions did not survive. The court found no indication in the scheme of the statute that the new provisions were only applicable to periods post-April 1, 2021. The court also held that the explanations in the CBDT circulars dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The court reasoned that these explanations, in the guise of clarification, attempted to alter the statutory provisions and exceeded the delegated powers granted under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The court quashed and set aside the impugned notices as invalid and bad in law. The writ petition was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the notices impugned in the writ petition were invalid and bad in law. The Court found that upon substitution by the Finance Act, 2021, the original provisions for reassessment stood repealed and had no existence after the introduction of the new provisions. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was referenced, stating that repeal shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time of repeal unless a different intention appears. The Court found no indication in the scheme of the Finance Act, 2021, that the old provisions would survive. The Court also noted that the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the substituted provisions indicated that notices which had become time-barred prior to April 1, 2021, under the old provisions could not be revived. Regarding the CBDT circulars, the Court held that they were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that the power to issue notifications under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, was limited to extending time limits, and introducing explanations that altered the application of statutory provisions exceeded the delegated authority. The explanations in the circulars were found to be an attempt to amend the parent Act through subordinate legislation, which is impermissible. Therefore, the notices issued without following the procedure under Section 148A and the new provisions were quashed. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed, and the writ petitions were allowed.
The High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in entertaining the ground of limitation at the appellate stage because the facts necessary to ascertain the limitation period were on record, and it was a pure question of law. Regarding the interpretation of Section 153B, the Court found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly applied the provisions as they stood at the relevant time. The search was conducted on July 31, 2012. As per the second proviso to Section 153B, for a search during the financial year 2012-13, the time limit for assessment under Section 153C was the later of twenty-one months from the end of the financial year of the search (i.e., 31.12.2014) or nine months from the end of the financial year in which the documents were handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The documents were received by the Assessing Officer on September 30, 2014. Therefore, the time limit was nine months from the end of FY 2014-15, which was 31.12.2015. The assessment order was passed on 31.03.2016, which was clearly beyond the limitation period of 31.12.2015. The Court concluded that no question of law arose and dismissed the appeal.
The tribunal held that the electricity supplied to the township was not intrinsically connected to BALCO's business operations and that the amendment to Rule 43 of the CGST Rules was not clarificatory but expanded the scope of supplies. Therefore, the amendment was not retrospective.
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 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 impugned notice issued in the present case was also quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a precedent exists for the invalidity of Section 148 notices under similar circumstances, subsequent identical 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 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 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 order. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner 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, for the reasons stated in the order dated January 27, 2022, 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 similar notice has been quashed by a coordinate bench on established grounds, subsequent identical notices should also be quashed without re-examining the merits.
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's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch) dated January 27, 2022. In that precedent, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were held 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 in the present case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021, must comply with the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The Court reasoned that there is no indication in the statutory provisions suggesting that the past reassessment provisions would continue to apply after their substitution. The first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, as substituted, explicitly states that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for a relevant assessment year beginning on or before April 1, 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time due to being beyond the time limit specified under the pre-amendment Section 149(1)(b). This proviso indicates that the new scheme of reassessment applies to all notices issued after April 1, 2021. The Court also found that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which sought to clarify that pre-amendment provisions would apply for issuing notices under Section 148, exceeded the CBDT's jurisdiction as subordinate legislation. These explanations were declared unconstitutional and invalid. Consequently, the impugned notices were found to be invalid and bad in law. The petitions were allowed, and the notices were quashed and set aside.
The High Court held that all notices for reassessment issued after April 1, 2021, must be in accordance with the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found that there was no indication that the past provisions would continue to apply after their substitution. The Court specifically addressed the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, which clarifies that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued if it could not have been issued under the old provisions due to time limits. The Court also declared the explanations in the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as unconstitutional and invalid. These explanations, which sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 for issuing notices, were found to exceed the delegated powers under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The Court reasoned that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and cannot amend the parent Act through an explanation. The ratio is that any action of issuing a notice under Section 148 after April 1, 2021, must adhere to the substituted provisions of the Finance Act, 2021. The impugned notices were quashed and set aside.
The High Court held that notices for reassessment issued after April 1, 2021, must be in accordance with the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The Court reasoned that there was no indication that the past provisions would continue to apply after their substitution. The first proviso to Section 149(1) of the substituted provisions was interpreted to mean that no notice under Section 148 could be issued if it was beyond the time limit specified under the old Section 149(1)(b). The Court also declared the explanations introduced by CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as unconstitutional and invalid. These explanations, which sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions for issuing notices under Section 148, were found to exceed the delegated powers under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The Court found the notices impugned in the petitions to be invalid and bad in law. The petitions were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
The High Court held that all notices for reassessment issued after April 1, 2021, must be in accordance with the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found no indication in the statutory provisions that the past reassessment provisions would continue to apply after their substitution. The Court specifically referred to the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, which clarified that no notice under Section 148 could be issued if it was beyond the time limit specified under the provisions as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. The Court also declared the explanations inserted by CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as unconstitutional and invalid, stating that the CBDT had exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation by attempting to alter the statutory provisions. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Court followed the view taken by the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts and disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's differing opinion.
The High Court held that all notices for reassessment issued after April 1, 2021, must be in accordance with the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The court reasoned that there was no indication in the statutory provisions that the past provisions would continue to apply after their substitution. Specifically, the court referred to the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act, which prevents the issuance of a notice under Section 148 at any time if it could not have been issued under the old time limits. This proviso indicates that the new scheme, including the extended time limits in Section 149(1)(b), cannot be used to revive time-barred notices for past periods. Furthermore, the court found that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions for notices issued after April 1, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid as they exceeded the delegated powers under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The court quashed the impugned notices, finding them invalid and bad in law. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
The High Court held that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices. The reasoning was that all notices issued after April 1, 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 their substitution. Furthermore, the Court declared the explanations introduced by CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as unconstitutional and invalid. These explanations, by providing that the old reassessment provisions would apply for issuing notices under Section 148, were deemed to have exceeded the jurisdiction of subordinate legislation. The Court explicitly disagreed with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja, stating that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, was not deferred and the effective date remained April 1, 2021. The ratio decidendi is that any action of issuing a notice under Section 148 after April 1, 2021, must adhere to the new regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, and subordinate legislation cannot override or alter the plain meaning of statutory provisions.
The Tribunal held that all notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after April 1, 2021, must be in accordance with the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found no indication in the statutory provisions suggesting that the past provisions would continue to apply after their substitution. The Court specifically addressed the first proviso to Section 149(1), 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 due to 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. This proviso, the Court reasoned, indicated that notices issued after April 1, 2021, would be governed by the substituted Section 149(1) but without breaching the upper time limit provided in the original Section 149(1). The Court also declared the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as unconstitutional and invalid, stating that the CBDT exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation by attempting to clarify or alter the statutory provisions. The notices impugned in the petitions were found to be invalid and bad in law and were accordingly quashed and set aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021, must comply with the newly substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found that the notices impugned in the petitions were issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148A of the Act and were therefore invalid. The Court reasoned that there is no indication in the statutory provisions suggesting that the past reassessment provisions would continue to apply after their substitution. The Court also declared the explanations in the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as unconstitutional and invalid. These explanations attempted to clarify that for the purpose of issuing notice under Section 148, the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, would apply, which the Court found to be an overreach of the delegated legislation's powers. The Court followed the views of the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts and held that the substitution of reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on April 1, 2021, and could not be deferred by subordinate legislation. Consequently, all the notices issued after April 1, 2021, without adhering to the new procedure, were quashed and set aside. The petitions were allowed.
The High Court held that all notices for reassessment issued after April 1, 2021, must comply with the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The court found that there was no indication in the statutory provisions that the old scheme of reassessment would continue to apply after the substitution. The court specifically addressed the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, 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 due to 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. This proviso indicates that the extended period available under the new Section 149(1)(b) cannot be used to revive notices that had become time-barred under the old provisions. Furthermore, the court declared the explanations in the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as unconstitutional and invalid. These explanations, which sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 for the purpose of issuing notices under Section 148, were held to exceed the delegated powers under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The court quashed the impugned notices as invalid and bad in law. The petitions were allowed.
The High Court held that all notices for reassessment issued after April 1, 2021, must be in accordance with the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found that there was no indication in the statutory provisions suggesting that the past reassessment provisions would continue to apply after their substitution. The Court specifically addressed the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, which limits the issuance of notices for past assessment years if they could not have been issued under the old provisions due to time limits. This proviso was interpreted as an indication that the new provisions would apply prospectively. Furthermore, the Court declared the explanations in the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that these explanations, by attempting to clarify that old provisions would apply, exceeded the delegated powers granted under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Subordinate legislation cannot amend or override the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's reasoning, stating that the amendments to reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, were not deferred and came into effect on April 1, 2021. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside.
The Tribunal held that notices for reassessment issued after April 1, 2021, must comply with the newly substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found that there was no indication in the statutory provisions suggesting that the old scheme of reassessment would continue to apply after the substitution. The Court reasoned that the Finance Act, 2021, brought about a significant departure in reassessment procedures, including changes in time limits and the elimination of the concept of disclosure of material facts. The Court further held that the explanations provided in the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions, were unconstitutional and invalid. This was because the subordinate legislation (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 concluded that the notices impugned in the petitions were issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148A and were therefore invalid. The notices were quashed and set aside. The writ petitions were allowed. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that all reassessment notices issued after April 1, 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 their substitution. Specifically, the Tribunal ruled that the first proviso to Section 149(1) clearly indicates that notices issued after April 1, 2021, would be governed by the substituted Section 149(1), but without breaching the upper time limits as they stood before the Finance Act, 2021. This means a notice that had become time-barred before April 1, 2021, under the old provisions could not be revived by the new provisions. Furthermore, the Court declared the explanations in the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as unconstitutional and invalid because they exceeded the delegated powers under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The Tribunal quashed the impugned notices as invalid and bad in law. The petitions were allowed.
The High Court held that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law, and consequently quashed them. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, which had quashed similar notices. The Court reasoned that the Finance Act, 2021, introduced a new scheme of reassessment with significant departures, including changes in time limits and the elimination of the concept of disclosure of material facts. The Court found no indication that the legislature intended the old scheme to continue applying to reassessments initiated after April 1, 2021, even for past assessment periods. The Court also found the explanations introduced by CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions for issuing notices under Section 148, to be unconstitutional and invalid as they exceeded the delegated powers under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The Court disagreed with the view that these notifications deferred the applicability of the new provisions or saved the old ones. Therefore, all writ petitions were allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.
The High Court quashed the impugned notices for reassessment, finding them invalid and bad in law. The Court followed its earlier decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer. The reasoning was that the new scheme of reassessment under the Finance Act, 2021, with its altered time limits and procedural requirements (like Section 148A), was applicable to all notices issued after April 1, 2021, irrespective of the assessment year. The Court found no indication that the legislature intended the old provisions to continue applying after their substitution. Furthermore, the Court declared the explanations introduced by CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as unconstitutional and invalid. These explanations, which sought to clarify that the pre-amendment provisions would apply for issuing notices under Section 148, were deemed to exceed the delegated powers under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, and were an attempt by subordinate legislation to alter the parent Act's provisions. The Court rejected the argument that these notifications deferred the applicability of the new provisions.
The High Court held that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices. The reasoning followed the precedent set in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, where it was observed that the new scheme of reassessment under the Finance Act, 2021, made significant departures, including changes in time limits and the irrelevance of the concept of failure to disclose material facts. The Court found no indication that the legislature intended the new scheme to apply only to periods post-April 1, 2021. Therefore, all notices issued after April 1, 2021, had to be in accordance with the new provisions. The Court also found that explanations introduced by CBDT notifications, which sought to apply the old provisions, exceeded the delegated powers and were unconstitutional. The Court explicitly stated that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, was not deferred and the amendments came into effect from April 1, 2021. The ratio decidendi is that reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021, must adhere to the new provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, and any attempt to apply the old provisions through subordinate legislation or interpretation is invalid.
The High Court held that the reassessment notices impugned in the petitions are invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices. The reasoning was based on the principle that any notice for reassessment issued after April 1, 2021, must be in accordance with the new provisions of the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found no indication in the statutory provisions that the old scheme of reopening assessments would continue to apply after the substitution for assessment periods prior to the amendment. The Court also found that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications, which sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions for notices issued after April 1, 2021, exceeded the delegated powers under the parent Act and were unconstitutional. The Court followed the view taken by the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts and disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's contrary view. The ratio decidendi is that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, was effective from April 1, 2021, and subsequent notices must comply with the new regime. The writ petitions were allowed.
The High Court held that the notices for reassessment impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Finance Act, 2021, introduced a new scheme of reassessment with significant changes, including modified time limits for issuing notices. The Court found no indication that the legislature intended the new scheme to apply only to periods post-April 1, 2021, or that the past provisions would continue to apply after their substitution. Furthermore, the Court found that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications, which sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions for notices issued after April 1, 2021, exceeded the delegated powers under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Such subordinate legislation could not alter the parent Act's provisions. The Court explicitly stated that the substitution of reassessment provisions by the Finance Act, 2021, came into effect on April 1, 2021, and could not have been deferred by CBDT notifications. The High Court followed the views of the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts, disagreeing with the Chhattisgarh High Court's contrary view.
The High Court held that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices. The reasoning was based on the principle that all reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021, must be in accordance with the new provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, which had quashed similar notices. The Court found no indication that the legislature intended the old scheme of reassessment to continue applying to notices issued after April 1, 2021, even for past assessment periods. The Court also found the explanations introduced by CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, to be unconstitutional and invalid as they exceeded the delegated powers under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, by attempting to alter the statutory provisions. The ratio decidendi is that the new reassessment regime under the Finance Act, 2021, is applicable to all notices issued after April 1, 2021.
The Tribunal held that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law. The reasoning is based on the judgment in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022), dated January 27, 2022. The Court observed that the new scheme of reassessment under the Finance Act, 2021, brought significant changes, including modified time limits for issuing notices and the elimination of the concept of income escaping assessment due to non-disclosure of material facts. The Court found no indication that the new scheme would only apply to periods post-April 1, 2021. It further held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which sought to clarify that the old provisions would apply for issuing notices under Section 148 as per time limits in Section 149 or 151, were unconstitutional and invalid. These explanations exceeded the jurisdiction of subordinate legislation and could not alter the plain meaning of the parent Act. Consequently, the notices were quashed and set aside. The ratio decidendi is that notices for reassessment issued after April 1, 2021, must comply with the new provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, and any subordinate legislation attempting to apply the old provisions retrospectively or to extend their applicability beyond their intended scope is invalid.
The High Court held that the reassessment notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices. The reasoning aligns with the judgment in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, which was relied upon. The Court found that the explanations introduced by CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which provided that the old reassessment provisions (as they stood on March 31, 2021) would apply for issuing notices under Section 148, exceeded the delegated powers under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The Court stated that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested by the parent Act and that an explanation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act. The Court disagreed with the view that the substitution of reassessment provisions was deferred or that the old regime was saved until June 30, 2021. The Court found no indication that the legislature intended the new scheme to apply only to periods post-April 1, 2021, and concluded that all notices issued after April 1, 2021, had to be in accordance with the new provisions.
The High Court held that the notices impugned in the respective petitions were invalid and bad in law. The Court quashed and set aside these notices. The reasoning followed the precedent set in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, where it was observed that the new scheme of reassessment under the Finance Act, 2021, introduced significant changes, including modified time limits and a new procedure under Section 148A. The Court found no indication that the legislature intended the new scheme to apply only to periods post-April 1, 2021, and that all notices issued after April 1, 2021, had to conform to the new provisions. The Court also found that the explanations introduced by CBDT notifications, which sought to apply the old provisions for notices issued after April 1, 2021, exceeded the delegated powers and were unconstitutional. The operative direction was to quash the notices and allow the writ petitions.
The High Court held that the petitioner's appeal, filed on 04.03.2020, was significantly delayed, as the assessment order was passed on 25.02.2014, and no appeal was filed for six years. The court found that the petitioner's assertion of not being aware of the assessment order was questionable, citing a letter written by the petitioner in 2015 regarding rectification proceedings. The court emphasized that the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, is not intended to revive old, abandoned causes. The specific condition in the CBDT circular, requiring the time limit for filing an appeal to have expired between 01.04.2019 and 31.01.2020, was crucial for screening out cases where the limitation had expired long ago. Allowing such appeals would open floodgates and enable assessees to revive abandoned causes, which was not the intention of the scheme. Therefore, the court found no merit in the petition.
The High Court held that all notices for reassessment issued after April 1, 2021, must be in accordance with the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found that the reassessment provisions substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, were intended to apply to all actions of issuing notices under Section 148 after April 1, 2021. The Court specifically addressed the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, stating that the explanations provided therein, which sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Court reasoned that these explanations, as a piece of delegated legislation, exceeded the powers vested in the CBDT by the parent Act (Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020) and could not alter the plain meaning of the statutory provisions. The Court also noted that the first proviso to Section 149(1) indicated that the new provisions would apply, but without reviving time-barred notices. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Court followed the view taken by the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts.
The High Court held that all notices for reassessment issued after April 1, 2021, must comply with the newly substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found that the Finance Act, 2021, brought about a significant departure in the reassessment scheme, including changes in time limits and the procedure for issuing notices. The Court reasoned that there was no indication in the statutory provisions that the old scheme would continue to apply after the substitution. Furthermore, the Court held that the explanations provided in the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were beyond the scope of the delegated power under Section 3(1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. As subordinate legislation, these notifications could not override or alter the plain meaning of the statutory provisions. The Court found these explanations to be unconstitutional and invalid. Consequently, the impugned notices, issued without following the procedure under Section 148A and based on the old provisions, were quashed. The Court followed the view taken by the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts in similar matters. The ratio decidendi is that any action of issuing a notice under Section 148 after April 1, 2021, must be in accordance with the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021, and subordinate legislation cannot validate actions contrary to the parent statute.
The High Court held that all notices for reassessment issued after April 1, 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 their substitution. The Court specifically addressed the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, which clarifies that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued if it could not have been issued prior to April 1, 2021, due to being beyond the time limit specified under the old Section 149(1)(b). This proviso indicates that the new scheme of reassessment, including the time limits under the substituted Section 149, would apply to notices issued after April 1, 2021, but without reviving time-barred cases. Furthermore, the Court declared the explanations in the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as unconstitutional and invalid. These explanations, which sought to apply the pre-amendment provisions of Section 148 for issuing notices, were deemed to exceed the jurisdiction of subordinate legislation. The Court reasoned that subordinate legislation cannot alter the plain meaning of statutory provisions. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The Court followed the views of the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts and disagreed with the Chhattisgarh High Court's contrary view.
The High Court held that all notices for reassessment issued after April 1, 2021, must comply with the newly introduced provisions of the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found that there was no indication in the statute that the past provisions would continue to apply after their substitution. The Court specifically addressed the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, 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. This proviso indicated that the new provisions would apply, but without reviving time-barred notices. The Court further held that the explanations provided in the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid as they exceeded the delegated powers under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The Court quashed the impugned notices and allowed the writ petitions, dismissing the revenue's appeals.
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. The Tribunal found that the first proviso to Section 149(1) clearly indicates 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 due to 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 new Section 149(1)(b) cannot be used for reopening assessments for past periods. The Tribunal also held that the explanations introduced by the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, were unconstitutional and invalid. The Tribunal reasoned that these explanations, in the guise of clarification, exceeded the delegated powers granted by the parent Act (Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020) by attempting to alter the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside.
The High Court held that the petitioner was eligible to avail the benefit of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Court reasoned that once the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT was condoned, it related back to the original date of filing, effectively meaning the appeal was pending as on the specified date of 31.01.2020. The Court followed the judgments of the Telangana High Court in Boddu Ramesh and the Gujarat High Court in Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel, which held that an order of condonation of delay means there was no delay, and the appeal is considered preferred within time. The Court also found the revenue's stand unsustainable, emphasizing that the scheme's primary purpose is the resolution of disputed taxes. The Court viewed the CBDT circular dated 04.12.2020 as a clarification and held that introducing a cut-off date for its applicability would be arbitrary and counter to the scheme's intent. The Court directed that the declarations filed by the petitioner be accepted and dealt with under the Act, and if the declarations incorrectly referred to appeals before the CIT(Appeals) instead of the ITAT, the designated authority should allow corrections rather than dismissing the declarations on this ground.
The High Court held that the petitioner was eligible to avail the benefit of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Court reasoned that once the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT was condoned, it related back to the original date of filing, effectively meaning the appeal was pending as on the specified date of 31.01.2020. The Court followed the judgments of the Telangana High Court in Boddu Ramesh and the Gujarat High Court in Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel, which held that an order of condonation of delay means there was no delay, and the appeal is considered preferred within time. The Court also found the revenue's stand unsustainable, emphasizing that the scheme's primary purpose is the resolution of disputed taxes. The Court viewed the CBDT circular dated 04.12.2020 as a clarification and held that introducing a cut-off date for its applicability would be arbitrary and counter to the scheme's intent. The Court directed that the declarations filed by the petitioner be accepted and dealt with under the Act, and if the declarations incorrectly referred to appeals before the CIT(Appeals) instead of the ITAT, the designated authority should allow corrections rather than dismissing the declarations on this ground.
The High Court held that the petitioner is eligible to avail the benefit of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Court reasoned that the primary purpose of the Act is the resolution of disputed taxes. It emphasized that once an application for condonation of delay is allowed by a competent authority, it is construed as if there was no delay, and the appeal is deemed to have been preferred within time, relating back to the original date of filing. Therefore, the petitioner's appeal before the ITAT, after condonation of delay, was considered pending as on the specified date. The Court followed the High Courts of Telangana and Gujarat, which held that the issuance of a clarification by the CBDT with a cut-off date would run counter to the concept of clarification and could be arbitrary. The Court also noted that the scheme had extensions, with the last one ending on March 31, 2021, thus not making the settlement open-ended. The impugned orders rejecting the declarations were set aside, and the declarations were to be accepted and dealt with as per the Act. The Court also directed that declarations should not be dismissed solely on the ground of referring to the wrong appellate forum (CIT Appeals instead of ITAT) and that the petitioner should be allowed to correct them.
The High Court held that notices for reassessment issued after April 1, 2021, must comply with the new provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found that the Finance Act, 2021, significantly altered the reassessment regime, including time limits and procedures, and there was no indication that the old provisions would continue to apply after the substitution. The Court specifically addressed the CBDT notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which introduced an explanation stating that for the purpose of issuing notices under Section 148, the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, would apply. The Court declared these explanations as unconstitutional and invalid, reasoning that they exceeded the delegated powers under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Subordinate legislation cannot amend or override the parent Act. The Court noted that similar views were taken by the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts, and disagreed with the contrary view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja. Consequently, the impugned notices were quashed and set aside. The writ petitions were allowed.
The High Court held that all reassessment notices issued after April 1, 2021, must be in accordance with the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. The Court found that the explanations introduced by the CBDT in its notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, which provided that for the purpose of issuing notice under Section 148, the provisions as they stood on March 31, 2021, would apply, exceeded the delegated powers. The Court reasoned that subordinate legislation cannot travel beyond the powers vested in it by the parent Act and that an explanation cannot amend the provisions of the parent Act. Therefore, these explanations were declared unconstitutional and invalid. The Court followed the view taken by the Allahabad and Delhi High Courts and independently arrived at the same conclusion, disagreeing with the Chhattisgarh High Court's view in Palak Khatuja. Consequently, the impugned notices were found to be invalid and bad in law and were quashed. The writ petitions were allowed.