Delhi High Court - Orders
Max Life Insurance Co. Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 2 March, 2022
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan, Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~18-20, 23-24, 26, 31-33, 35-37, 39, 43-45(148 matters)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3557/2022 & CM APPL. 10513/2022
MAX LIFE INSURANCE CO. LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kaustubh Shukla and Ms. Nancy
Shamim, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(1),
DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SC with
Mr. Shailendra Singh, Jr. SC and Mr.
Udit Sharma, Adv.
$~19
+ W.P.(C) 3558/2022 & CM APPL. 10514/2022
AST TELECOM SOLAR PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mudit Bansal, Advocate.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1 (1),
DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with Mr.
Vipul Agrawal and Mr. Parth
Semwal, Jr. St. Counsels.
$~20
+ W.P.(C) 3559/2022 & CM APPLs. 10520-21/2022
ANSHUL KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Surender Raizada, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28 (1) DELHI AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. SC with
Mr. Pratyush Gupta, Jr. SC.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:03.03.2022
18:15:56
$~23
+ W.P.(C) 3562/2022 & CM APPLs. 10526-27/2022
HOLY BUILDING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agar
and Mr. Anshul Mittal, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(1) DELHI & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. SC with
Mr. Pratyush Gupta, Jr. SC.
$~24
+ W.P.(C) 3564/2022 & CM APPLs. 10530-31/2022
SARV ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nagesh Kumar Behl and
Mr.Mayank Pachauri, Advs.
versus
ITO WARD 22(3) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv for Revenue.
$~26
+ W.P.(C) 3567/2022 & CM APPLs. 10536/2022, 10674/2022
INDIABULLS COMMERCIAL CREDIT LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Neha Gund, Adv.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with
Mr.Imon Bhattacharya, Adv. for UOI.
Mr.Ajit Sharma, Sr.SC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:03.03.2022
18:15:56
$~31
+ W.P.(C) 3577/2022 & CM APPLs. 10556-57/2022
MEENU BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gautam Jain and Mr. Piyush
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
43(1), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv for Revenue.
$~32
+ W.P.(C) 3581/2022 & CM APPLs. 10562-63/2022
ANDHERI PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain, Ms. Arshita Goyal
and Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr.SC, Ms.Easha
Kadian, Jr.SC
$~33
+ W.P.(C) 3582/2022 & CM APPLs. 10564-65/2022
SURPLUS INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agar
and Mr. Anshul Mittal, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 24(1) DELHI & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv for Revenue.
$~35
+ W.P.(C) 3584/2022 & CM APPL. 10567/2022
PRADEEP UBEROI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Wadhwa and Ms. Anshika
Taneja, Advs.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:03.03.2022
18:15:56
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 28
(1) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SC with
Mr. Shailendra Singh, Jr. SC and
Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.
$~36
+ W.P.(C) 3585/2022 & CM APPL. 10568/2022
GOLDEN SANDHAR MILLS LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Rounak
Nayar, Mr. Anshul Chowdhary and
Ms. Arju Chaudhary, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 27(1), NEW DELHI
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with
Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC
$~37
+ W.P.(C) 3587/2022 & CM APPL. 10570/2022
INTELLECT PROJECTS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.P. Gupta, Mr. Anunav Kumar
and Mr. Nem Singh, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. SC with
Mr. Pratyush Gupta, Jr. SC.
$~39
+ W.P.(C) 3589/2022 & CM APPL. 10575/2022
VIJAY LATHA JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.P. Gupta, Mr. Anunav Kumar
and Mr. Nem Singh, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with Mr.
Vipul Agrawal and Mr. Parth
Semwal, Jr. St. Counsels.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:03.03.2022
18:15:56
$~43
+ W.P.(C) 3596/2022 & CM APPLs. 10588-89/2022
LAXMI NARAIN RAM DASS AND CO. PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Surbhi Chandra, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 15(1) DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through:
$~44
+ W.P.(C) 3598/2022 & CM APPLs. 10592-93/2022
HOLY BUILDING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agar
and Mr. Anshul Mittal, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(1) DELHI & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. SC with
Mr. Pratyush Gupta, Jr. SC.
$~45
+ W.P.(C) 3599/2022 & CM APPL. 10594/2022
ISHVAM PORTFOLIO PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mudit Bansal, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1), DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SC with
Mr. Shailendra Singh, Jr. SC and
Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:03.03.2022
18:15:56
ORDER
% 02.03.2022
1. Learned counsel for the parties admit that as the impugned notices in the present matters have been issued post 31st March, 2021 without following the procedure prescribed in the substituted Sections 147 to 151 w.e.f. 01st April, 2021, the present matters are covered by the judgment dated 15th December, 2021 passed by this Court in the case of Mon Mohan Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., W.P.(C) No.6176/2021.
2. The conclusion reached by this Court in Mon Mohan Kohli (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"CONCLUSION
97. This Court is of the view that as the Legislature has introduced the new provisions, Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by way of the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1st April, 2021 and as the said Section 147 is not even mentioned in the impugned Explanations, the reassessment notices relating to any Assessment Year issued under Section 148 after 31st March, 2021 had to comply with the substituted Sections.
98. It is clarified that the power of reassessment that existed prior to 31st March, 2021 continued to exist till the extended period i.e. till 30th June, 2021; however, the Finance Act, 2021 has merely changed the procedure to be followed prior to issuance of notice with effect from 1st April, 2021.
99. This Court is of the opinion that Section 3(1) of Relaxation Act empowers the Government/Executive to extend only the time limits and it does not delegate the power to legislate on provisions to be followed for initiation of reassessment proceedings. In fact, the Relaxation Act does not give power to Government to extend the erstwhile Sections 147 to 151 beyond 31st March, 2021 and/or defer the operation of substituted Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:03.03.2022 18:15:56 provisions enacted by the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the impugned Explanations in the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 are not conditional legislation and are beyond the power delegated to the Government as well as ultra vires the parent statute i.e. the Relaxation Act. Accordingly, this Court is respectfully not in agreement with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), but with the views of the Allahabad High Court and Rajasthan High Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra) and Bpip Infra Private Limited (supra) respectively.
100. The submission of the Revenue that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act saves notices issued under Section 148 post 31st March, 2021 is untenable in law, as in the present case, the repeal is followed by a fresh legislation on the same subject and the new Act manifests an intention to destroy the old procedure. Consequently, if the Legislature has permitted reassessment to be made in a particular manner, it can only be in this manner, or not at all.
101. The argument of the respondents that the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021 is not applicable to past Assessment Years, as it is substantial in nature is contradicted by Respondents' own Circular 549 of 1989 and its own submission that from 1st July, 2021, the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021 will be applicable.
102. Revenue cannot rely on Covid-19 for contending that the new provisions Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not operate during the period 1st April, 2021 to 30th June, 2021 as Parliament was fully aware of Covid-19 Pandemic when it passed the Finance Act, 2021. Also, the arguments of the respondents qua non-obstante clause in Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 'legal fiction' and 'stop the clock provision' are contrary to facts and untenable in law.
103. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the Executive/Respondents/Revenue cannot use the administrative power to issue Notifications under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020 to undermine the expression of Parliamentary supremacy in the form of an Act of Parliament, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:03.03.2022 18:15:56 namely, the Finance Act, 2021. This Court is also of the opinion that the Executive/Respondents/Revenue cannot frustrate the purpose of substituted statutory provisions, like Sections 147 to 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the present instance, by emptying it of content or impeding or postponing their effectual operation."
3. Keeping in view the aforesaid, Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 are declared to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020 and are therefore bad in law and null and void.
4. Consequently, the impugned reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are quashed and the present writ petitions are allowed. If the law permits the respondents/revenue to take further steps in the matter, they shall be at liberty to do so. Needless to state that if and when such steps are taken and if the petitioners have a grievance, they shall be at liberty to take their remedies in accordance with law.
MANMOHAN, J SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J MARCH 2, 2022/N Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:03.03.2022 18:15:56