Delhi High Court - Orders
Raj Laxmi Gaur vs Income Tax Officer Ward 58 (1) New Delhi & ... on 20 April, 2022
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan, Dinesh Kumar Sharma
$~302, 304-307, 309 & 313 (covered 148 matters)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
302
+ W.P.(C) 6260/2022, CM APPL. 18886/2022
RAJ LAXMI GAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Sood, Mr. Rishabh Nangia,
Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 58 (1) NEW DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Adv.
304
+ W.P.(C) 6262/2022, CM APPL. 18889/2022, CM APPL. 18890/2022
MULAKH RAJ RAMESH KUMAR AND CO. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 47(1), NEW DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra and Mr.
Shailendra Singh, Advs.
305
+ W.P.(C) 6263/2022, CM APPL. 18891/2022, CM APPL. 18892/2022
MULAKH RAJ RAMESH KUMAR AND CO. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 47(1) NEW DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra and Mr.
Shailendra Singh, Advs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:21.04.2022
20:23:01
306
+ W.P.(C) 6264/2022, CM APPL. 18893/2022, CM APPL. 18894/2022
SD GLOBAL IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Arya and Mr.Ashvini
Kumar, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22(3), DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai and Ms. Adeeba
Mujahid, Advs.
307
+ W.P.(C) 6265/2022, CM APPL.18895/2022, CM APPL. 18896/2022
REAL VALUE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 21(1), NEW DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Mr.
Tushar Gupta, Mr. Samarth
Chaudhari, Advs.
Mr. Prashanta Varma, Sr. CGC for
UOI.
309
+ W.P.(C) 6303/2022, CM APPL. 18985/2022, CM APPL. 18986/2022
RITU DALMIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saksham Singhal, Adv.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:21.04.2022
20:23:01
INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr.Parth
Semwal, Mr.Aditya Chhajed and
Mr.Vipul Agrawal, Advs.
Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Sr. Panel
Counsel for R-3.
313
+ W.P.(C) 6309/2022, CM APPL. 18999/2022, CM APPL.19000/2022
RAJESH KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhinav Arya and Mr.Ashvini
Kumar, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 52(1),
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kunal Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
ORDER
% 20.04.2022
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:-
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:21.04.2022 20:23:01"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 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:21.04.2022 20:23:01 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, 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:21.04.2022 20:23:01 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 DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J APRIL 20, 2022 Pallavi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:21.04.2022 20:23:01