Virendra Kumar Dhariwal Son Of Late Shri ... vs Dcit, Circle-2, Kota on 27 January, 2022

[Cites 75, Cited by 9]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Virendra Kumar Dhariwal Son Of Late Shri ... vs Dcit, Circle-2, Kota on 27 January, 2022

Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sameer Jain

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022
Sudesh Taneja Wife Of Shri C P Taneja, Residing At 58, Cosmo
Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302021
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jaipur Having Address At
New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur,
Rajasthan, 302005
2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, North
Block, New Delhi-110011 Through Its Chairman.
----Respondents

connected with

1.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9012/2021
Gopal Das Sonkia, S/o Late Shri Bhagwan Das Khandelwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
2.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10483/2021
Usha Golcha W/o Shri Surendra Kumar Golcha
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
3.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10485/2021
Mukesh Kapoor S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Kapoor
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
4.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14533/2021
Anand Kumar Modi S/o Gajanand Modi
----Petitioner
Versus
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(2 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

5.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14704/2021
Prahalad Rai Rathi (Huf)
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
6.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14706/2021
Sh. Krishan Kumar Parwal
----Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
7.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14707/2021
Smt. Sulochana Agrawal
----Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
8.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15174/2021
Sh. Modh. Rafiq S/o Sh. Adhul Kayyum Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
9.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15177/2021
Giriraj Singh Hada S/o Late Mahraj Tejraj Singh Ji
----Petitioner
Versus
The Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
10.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 181/2022
Inderjit Sahni W/o Surendra Pal Singh Sahni
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
11.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 301/2022
Praveen Sharma S/o Late R.c. Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(3 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Respondent
12.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 419/2022
Sanjeev Singh Chodhri Son Of Shri Bhanwar Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
13.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 508/2022
Preeti Bakshi Wife Of Dr. Sandeep Bakshi
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
14.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 527/2022
Stilokraft
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
15.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 561/2022
Preeti Bakshi Wife Of Dr. Sandeep Bakshi
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
16.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 575/2022
Abdul Basit S/o Mr. Abdul Baqul
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
17.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 590/2022
Mohammed Salim Maniyar S/o Shri Abdul Maniyar
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
18.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 595/2022
Mohammed Salim Maniyar S/o Shri Abdul Maniyar
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(4 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
19.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 597/2022
Mohammed Rafik Maniyar S/o Shri Mohammed Salim Maniyar
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
20.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 600/2022
Mrs. Ursula Joshi Wife And Legal Heir Of Late Mr. Rajendra
Kumar Joshi
----Petitioner
Versus
Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Jcit)
----Respondent
21.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 611/2022
Raj Kumar Agarwal S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop Agarwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
22.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 627/2022
Parasram Lalwani Son Of Shri Govind Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
23.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 651/2022
Preeti Bakshi Wife Of Dr. Sandeep Bakshi
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
24.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 685/2022
Kanti Prasad Sharma Son Of Shri Narottam Prasad Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
25.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 888/2022
B. Lodha Securities Limited

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(5 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
26.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 909/2022
Mahendra Kumar Gangwal Huf
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
27.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 918/2022
Savita Pareek W/o Ravikant Purohit
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
28.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 953/2022
Vinod Kumar Bumb S/o Shri Ratan Lal Bumb
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
29.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 996/2022
Mani Kant Garg, S/o Bhanwar Lal Garg
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
30.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8311/2021
Vinod Kumar Roongta, S/o Shri Anandilal Roongta
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/deputy Commissioner Of
Income Tax
----Respondent
31.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8480/2021
Nirmal Industries Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Commissiner Of Income Tax
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(6 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

32.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8747/2021
Kamlesh Dangayach S/o Shri Hari Ram Khandelwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
33.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8755/2021
Hari Mohan Dangayach, S/o Shri Ram Bilas Dangayach
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
34.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8768/2021
Prashant Gupta S/o Shri Gopal Prasad Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
35.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9235/2021
Indarani Bothra W/o Shri S C Bothra
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
36.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9236/2021
Mahima Real Estate Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
37.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9248/2021
M M Realty
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
38.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9254/2021
Dhirendra Madan, S/o Shri Dass Ram Madan
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(7 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Respondent
39.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9259/2021
Monitor Real Estates Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Kolkata
----Respondent
40.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9319/2021
Puran Mal Meena Son Of Kana Raam Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
41.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9342/2021
Amros Engineering Pvt Ltd
----Petitioner
Versus
Ito Ward 4(2)
----Respondent
42.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9763/2021
Vipul Premises Llp
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
43.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9764/2021
Dinesh Kumawat Son Of Shri Chhotu Ram Kumawat
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), Jaipur
----Respondent
44.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9765/2021
Chhotu Ram Kumawat Huf
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
45.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9766/2021
Nemi Chand Son Of Shri Rameshwar Lal
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(8 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
46.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9830/2021
Vibhishek Pal Singh S/o Shri Ajay Pal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
47.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9837/2021
Unique Madhuban Homes Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
48.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9838/2021
Metro Cabs Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Ward
----Respondent
49.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9839/2021
Unique Affordable Homes Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
50.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9891/2021
Unique Pioneer Homes Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
51.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9892/2021
Unique Realmart Llp
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax
----Respondent
25.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10037/2021
Sunil Gupta S/o Vinod Gupta
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(9 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
53.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10154/2021
Santosh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
54.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10260/2021
M/s Shiv Vegpro Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2
----Respondent
55.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10493/2021
Abhimanyu Golcha S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Golcha
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
56.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10499/2021
Surendra Kumar Golcha S/o Shri H.c. Golcha
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
57.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10734/2021
Late Shri Nandkishor Khandelwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
58.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10745/2021
Late Smt. Badami Devi Khandelwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
59.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11092/2021
Suchita Joshi W/o Shri Amit Joshi

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(10 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
60.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11411/2021
Budhi Prakash Sharma S/o Harsh Narayan Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
61.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11429/2021
Kusum Sharma D/o Hari Narain Goswami
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
62.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11628/2021
Anita Dangayach W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
63.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11632/2021
Ekco Plastics Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
64.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11635/2021
Rajesh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Nand Kishore Khandelwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
65.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11636/2021
Navjeevan Resorts And Holidays Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(11 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

66.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11637/2021
Vijay Dangayach Huf
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commisioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
67.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11647/2021
Shobha Dangayach W/o Late Shri Vijay Dangayach
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
68.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11722/2021
Padam Chand Jain S/o Shri Ram Karan Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
69.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11809/2021
Puneet Pratap Singhal S/o Shri Dhurva Prakash Singhal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
70.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11817/2021
Iconic Fashion Retailing Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
71.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11840/2021
Samarth Lifestyle Retailing Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax / Deputy Commissioner
Of Income Tax
----Respondent
72.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11866/2021
Vijay Kumar Mehta S/o Shri Hasti Chand Mehta
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(12 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
73.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12772/2021
Gulabchand Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
74.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12886/2021
Shri Sushil Kumar Bansal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
75.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12970/2021
Sanjog Steels Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
76.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12971/2021
Pankaj Jain S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
77.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13183/2021
Gopal Lal Dhamani Son Of Shri Ram Ratan Dhamani
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
78.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13296/2021
Royal Concept Developers
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
79.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13393/2021
Hanuman Das Buildtech Private Limited
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(13 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
80.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13404/2021
Gaurav Dhamani Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Dhamani
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
81.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13487/2021
Asha Khunteta W/o Shri Sandeep Khunteta
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
82.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13500/2021
Manish Khunteta S/o Late Shri Kamlesh Kumar Khunteta
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
83.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13520/2021
Manish Khunteta S/o Late Shri Kamlesh Kumar Khunteta
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
84.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13521/2021
Manish Khunteta S/o Late Shri Kamlesh Kumar Khunteta
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
85.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13525/2021
Mohan Lal Gupta S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
86.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13532/2021
Guarav Nigam S/o Rajendra Kumar Nigam

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(14 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Petitioner
Versus
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
87.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13559/2021
Prakash Om Chelani, Son Of Shri Jhuramal Chelani
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
88.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13560/2021
Sanjay Kumar Jain, Son Of Shri Kewal Chand Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
89.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13562/2021
Prakash Om Chelani, Son Of Shri Jhuramal Chelani
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
90.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13563/2021
Prakash Om Chelani Son Of Shri Jhuramal Chelani
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
91.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13571/2021
Sanjay Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Kewal Chand Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
92.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13573/2021
Kewal Chand Jain Son Of Shri Juhar Mal Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(15 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

93.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13578/2021
Kewal Chand Jain Son Of Shri Juhar Mal Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
94.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13702/2021
Karan Bhatia Son Of Shri Suraj Bhatia
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
95.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13704/2021
Karan Bhatia Son Of Shri Suraj Bhatia
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
96.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13715/2021
Archana Dangayach W/o Shri Nawal Kishore Dangayach
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
97.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13726/2021
Gurumukh Das
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
98.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13853/2021
Shiv Kumar Soni
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
99.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13859/2021
Sachin Garg
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(16 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Respondent
100.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13862/2021
Tirupati Pulses Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
101.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13929/2021
Raghukul Buildtech Llp
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
102.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13930/2021
Radheyshyam And Company
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
103.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13948/2021
Prerna Agricultural Farms Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
104.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13992/2021
Prakash Chand Kothari S/o Shri Ghisilal Kothari
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
105.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14005/2021
Kgk Real Estate Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
106.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14011/2021
Shiv Kumar Soni
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(17 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
107.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14056/2021
Nathu Lal Kuldeep
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
108.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14057/2021
Aditi Modi, D/o Shri Siya Saran Rawat
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
109.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14059/2021
Nishi Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
110.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14072/2021
Reverence Infrastructure India Llp
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
111.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14097/2021
Sanjeev Kumar Jhanjharia S/o Shri Mool Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
112.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14132/2021
Aruna Modi D/o Shri Madan Lal Khandelwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
113.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14134/2021
Jitendra Modi S/o Shri Ram Gopal Modi
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(18 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
114.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14162/2021
Late Shri Mohan Lal Agarwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
115.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14361/2021
Anita Bohra Daughter Of Shri Sh. Hira Lal Bohra
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
116.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14393/2021
Gaurav Agrawal
----Petitioner
Versus
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
117.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14397/2021
Gaurav Agrawal
----Petitioner
Versus
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
118.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14406/2021
Saurav Agrawal
----Petitioner
Versus
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
119.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14427/2021
Mani Jain Daughter Of Shri Vijay Kumar Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)
----Respondent
120.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14473/2021
Back Office It Solutions Private Limited

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(19 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
121.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14501/2021
Dr. Amita Birla
----Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
122.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14502/2021
Dr. Amita Birla
----Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
123.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14503/2021
Dr. Amita Birla
----Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
124.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14504/2021
Dr. Amita Birla
----Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
125.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14506/2021
Sanjya Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
126.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14511/2021
Denim Developers Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(20 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

127.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14522/2021
Shubh Angan Buildtech Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
128.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14550/2021
Virendra Kumar Dhariwal Son Of Late Shri Rikhab Chand
Dhariwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Dcit, Circle-2, Kota
----Respondent
129.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14551/2021
Virendra Kumar Dhariwal Son Of Late Shri Rikhab Chand
Dhariwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Dcit, Circle-2, Kota
----Respondent
130.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14581/2021
Satish Kumar Agarwal (Huf)
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
131.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14582/2021
Virendra Kumar Dhariwal Son Of Late Shri Rikhab Chand
Dhariwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Dcit
----Respondent
132.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14603/2021
Rash Behari Rungta S/o Sh. Rajendra Prasad Rungta
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
133.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14664/2021
Geeta Gulia D/o Ajeet Singh
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(21 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
134.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14693/2021
Smt. Deepika Malani
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
135.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14694/2021
Sh. Krishan Kumar Parwal
----Petitioner
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
136.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14695/2021
Abc Overseas Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
137.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14698/2021
Priti Rathi D/o Shri Satyanarayan Mangilal Mungad
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
138.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14699/2021
Tarun Kumar Nahta
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
139.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14700/2021
Tarun Kumar Nahta
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
140.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14701/2021
Deepa Rathi W/o Shri Sanjay Rathi

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(22 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
141.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14702/2021
Ratan Shree
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
142.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14703/2021
Yogesh Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Roop Singh Shekhawat
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
143.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14741/2021
Smt. Basanti Devi Parwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
144.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14742/2021
Sh. Ankesh Agrawal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
145.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14743/2021
Smt Sunita Parwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
146.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14783/2021
Nilesh Soni S/o Sitaram Soni
----Petitioner
Versus
Income, Tax Department
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(23 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

147.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14791/2021
Manish Bansal S/o, Sh. Nawal Kishor Bansal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
148.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14792/2021
Rajasthan Digital Tiles Pvt Ltd
----Petitioner
Versus
Ito Ward 6(2)
----Respondent
149.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14794/2021
Nilesh Bansal S/o Sh. Girraj Prasad Bansal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
150.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14795/2021
Mukesh S/o Sh. Shyoji
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
151.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14799/2021
Sunil Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Dhanraj Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
152.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14800/2021
Nilesh Bansal S/o, Sh. Girraj Prasad Bansal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
153.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14805/2021
Mukesh S/o Sh. Shyoji
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(24 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Respondent
154.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14806/2021
Manish Bansal S/o Sh. Nawal Kishor Bansal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
155.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14808/2021
Mohammed Shakil S/o Sh. Mohammed Hanif
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
156.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14810/2021
Sunil Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Dhanraj Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward- Tonk
----Respondent
157.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14811/2021
Saraswati Builders (Partnership Firm)
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(2)
----Respondent
158.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14812/2021
Bhagirathi Udyog
----Petitioner
Versus
Ito Ward 1(3)
----Respondent
159.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14813/2021
Jai Prakash Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
Ito Ward 1(3)
----Respondent
160.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14816/2021
Damodar Prasad Mittal S/o Sh. Devki Nandan Mittal
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(25 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Income Tax Officer, Ito Wd Tonk
----Respondent
161.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14840/2021
Bhavna Singh D/o Shiv Singh W/o Sanjeev Sogarwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Itd Ward 6(3)
----Respondent
162.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14843/2021
Jaipur Build Developers Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
163.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14852/2021
Radha Krishan Kogta S/o Prem Lal Kogta
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
164.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14854/2021
Kapil Sharma Son Of Shri Surendar Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
165.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14857/2021
Radha Krishan Kogta S/o Prem Lal Kogta
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
166.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14858/2021
Radha Krishan Kogta S/o Prem Lal Kogta
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
167.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14859/2021
Shiv Kumar Soni
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(26 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
168.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14881/2021
Arpit Jain Son Of Shri Anil Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Income Tax
----Respondent
169.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14887/2021
Rajesh Sharma Son Of Shri Bhagwan Sahai Sharma,
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
170.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14889/2021
Nectar Infra Solutions Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
171.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14892/2021
Rakesh Gupta Son Of Shri Babu Ram Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
172.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14893/2021
Arpit Jain Son Of Shri Anil Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Income Tax
----Respondent
173.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14900/2021
Arpit Jain Son Of Shri Anil Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Income Tax
----Respondent
174.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14919/2021
Back Office It Solutions Private Limited

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(27 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
175.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14928/2021
Vaibhav Gehlot S/o Shri Ashok Gehlot
----Petitioner
Versus
Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
176.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14929/2021
Khushi Real Estate
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
177.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14981/2021
Jc Antiques And Crafts
----Petitioner
Versus
Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
178.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15025/2021
Balram Choudhary Son Of Shri Bodu Ram Choudhary
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
179.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15055/2021
Balram Choudhary Son Of Shri Bodu Ram Choudhary
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
180.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15087/2021
Bina Jain Daughter Of Shri Padam Chand Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(28 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

181.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15091/2021
Ram Babu Badaya
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Wd 6(2)
----Respondent
182.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15117/2021
Mahesh Kumar Sudrania
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
183.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15132/2021
Puran Mal Prahlad Rai
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
184.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15135/2021
Ram Phool Meena S/o Kana Ram Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
185.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15137/2021
Nanu Ram Meena S/o Ram Narayan Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
186.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15140/2021
Manju Kogta D/o Prithviraj Kochliya
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
187.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15142/2021
Manish Kumar Goyal S/o Shri Kamal Bihari Goyal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(29 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Respondent
188.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15145/2021
Ashish Goyal S/o Shri Kamal Bihari Goyal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
189.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15146/2021
Sushila Yadav W/o Ramawatar Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
190.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15147/2021
Alka Bhargava W/o Naresh Kumar Bhargava
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
191.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15164/2021
Rakesh Singhal Son Of Late Mr. Arjun Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
192.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15166/2021
Late Ganesh Mal Chindalia Son Of Late Shri Ganpat Rai Chindalia
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
193.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15168/2021
Alka Bhargava W/o Naresh Kumar Bhargava
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
194.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15183/2021
Purnima Lodha
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(30 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
195.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15185/2021
Poorvi Lodha
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
196.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15186/2021
Vivek Lodha
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
197.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15187/2021
Vinod Kumar Gupta Son Of Shri Dungarmal Ji Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
198.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15189/2021
Rishabh Marketing Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
199.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15191/2021
Ritu Bhalotia D/o Binod Jhunjhunwala
----Petitioner
Versus
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
200.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15196/2021
Ram Karan Meena S/o Ram Narayan Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
201.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15197/2021
Bardi Chand Meena S/o Ram Narayan Meena
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(31 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
202.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15198/2021
Naresh Kumar Bhargava
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
203.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15201/2021
Samkit Hirawat
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
204.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15203/2021
Pradeep Mittal S/o Anand Shankar Mittal
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
205.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15204/2021
Late Gopal Meena Son Of Shri Ram Narayn Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
206.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15205/2021
Jagdish Meena S/o Ram Narayan Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
207.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15206/2021
Naresh Bhargava Huf
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
208.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15207/2021
Vinod Kumar Lodha Huf

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(32 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
209.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15208/2021
Lala Ram Meena S/o Kana Ram Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
210.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15216/2021
Nitish Bhargava
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
211.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15217/2021
Vigyan Lodha
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
212.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15218/2021
Vijeta Lodha
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
213.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15219/2021
Poorvi Lodha
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
214.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15229/2021
Naresh Kumar Bhargava
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(33 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

215.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15232/2021
Nawal Kishore Dangayach Huf
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
216.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15281/2021
Nawal Kishore Dangayach S/o Shri Jugal Kishore Dangayach
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
217.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15314/2021
Gyarsi Lal S/o Har Sahay
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
218.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15316/2021
Suraj Mal Sharma S/o Har Sahaya
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
219.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15350/2021
Hemant Shares Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
220.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15352/2021
Aaditya Finechem Pvt. Ltd.
----Petitioner
Versus
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
221.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15362/2021
Aaditya Finechem Pvt. Ltd.
----Petitioner
Versus
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(34 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Respondent
222.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15368/2021
Gemco International
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
223.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15370/2021
Shri Ratanlal Sharma (Deceased)
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
224.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15373/2021
Dinesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Ratan Lal Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
225.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15374/2021
Gemco International
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
226.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15388/2021
Nihal Chand Jain Infra Project Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
227.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15393/2021
Sunita Sharma D/o Ramavatar Joshi
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
228.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15397/2021
Nilesh Kayathwal Huf
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(35 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
229.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15431/2021
Sita Devi Agrawal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
230.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5/2022
Kishore Kumar S/o Kalyan Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
231.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 54/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Sanjay Chhabra Son Of Late Shri Moti Lal Jain
----Respondent
232.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 55/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Chhabra Son Of Late Shri Moti Lal Jain
----Respondent
233.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 56/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Chhabra Son Of Late Shri Moti Lal Jain
----Respondent
234.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 57/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Motisons Commodities Private Limited
----Respondent
235.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 58/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(36 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Parshvanath Finvest Private Limited
----Respondent
236.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 59/2022
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Vk Bordia And Sons Huf
----Respondent
237.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 60/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Motisons Commodities Private Limited
----Respondent
238.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 61/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Anek Shri Daughter Of Babu Singh
----Respondent
239.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 62/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income
----Petitioner
Versus
Thar Share Brokers Private Limited
----Respondent
240.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 63/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Motisons Commodities Private Limited
----Respondent
241.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 64/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
Sanjay Chhabra Son Of Late Shri Moti Lal Jain
----Respondent
242.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 65/2022
Income Tax Officer

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(37 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Petitioner
Versus
Agencies Rajasthan Private Limited, B-21, Industrial Estate
----Respondent

243.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 66/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Sanjay Chhabra Son Of Late Shri Moti Lal Jain
----Respondent
244.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 68/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Lotus Buildtech Private Limited
----Respondent
245.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 70/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Sunita Gupta W/o Shri Arvind Gupta
----Respondent
246.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 71/2022
Union Of India
----Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Santosh Sharma W/o Late Shri Gopal Sharma
----Respondent
247.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 72/2022
Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Income
Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Sharma S/o Shri Budhi Prakash Sharma
----Respondent
248.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 73/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Triveni Kripa Realcon Limited
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(38 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

249.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 74/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Kpr Capital Management Llp
----Respondent
250.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 75/2022
Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Sharma S/o Shri Budhi Prakash Sharma
----Respondent
251.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 76/2022
Assam Edible Oils Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
252.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 76/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Unique Dream Builders Private Limited
----Respondent
253.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 77/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Chhabra Son Of Late Shri Moti Lal Jain
----Respondent
254.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 78/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Kajal Chhabra Wife Of Shri Sanjay Chhabra
----Respondent
255.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 79/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Pushpa Agarwal W/o Late Shri Rajendra Prasad Agarwal

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(39 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Respondent
256.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 80/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Kailash Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Ram Ballabh Agarwal
----Respondent
257.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 81/2022
Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Ridhi Share Brokers Private Limited
----Respondent
258.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 82/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Lotus Buildtech Private Limited
----Respondent
259.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 83/2022
Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Mukund Modi S/o Sh. Nirmal Kumar Agarwal
----Respondent
260.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 84/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Harikripa Buildestate Private Limited
----Respondent
261.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 85/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Chhabra Son Of Late Shri Moti Lal Jain
----Respondent
262.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 88/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(40 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Namit Agarwal S/o Late Shri Rajendra Prasad Agarwal
----Respondent
263.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 89/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Om Builders
----Respondent
264.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 90/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Shubh Laxmi Buidcon
----Respondent
265.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 91/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Unique Builders (Realty)
----Respondent
266.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 92/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Reena Agarwal W/o Shri Manish Agarwal
----Respondent

267.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 93/2022
Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Ridhi Share Brokers Private Limited
----Respondent
268.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 94/2022
Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Ridhi Share Brokers Private Limited
----Respondent
269.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 95/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(41 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Petitioner
Versus
Thar Share Brokers Private Limited
----Respondent
270.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 96/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Unique Dream Builders Private Limited
----Respondent
271.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 97/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Sriram Associates
----Respondent
272.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 98/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Vishal Bohra Son Of Bhim Raj Bohra
----Respondent
273.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 99/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Unique Builders (Realty)
----Respondent
274.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 100/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Rachit Jain S/o Shri Suresh Jain
----Respondent
275.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 101/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Nitin Gilara S/o Shri Gordhan Das Gilara
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:29 PM)
(42 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

276.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 102/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Ritika Agarwal D/o Mani Shankar Agarwal
----Respondent
277.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 103/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Motisons Shares Private Limited
----Respondent
278.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 104/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Late Smt. Kamala Agarwal
----Respondent
279.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 105/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Sitaram Agarwal S/o Late Shri Ghisa Lal Agarwal
----Respondent
280.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 106/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Chiranjeev Lal Agarwal Huf
----Respondent
281.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 107/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Arvind Kumar Son Of Ramniwas Janu
----Respondent
282.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 108/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Ram Niranjan Tibra Son Of Shri Vishwanath Tibra

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(43 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Respondent
283.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 109/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Shri Om Prakash Morwal Son Of Shri Ram Kumar Morwal
----Respondent
284.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 110/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Shri Om Prakash Morwal Son Of Shri Ram Kumar Morwal
----Respondent
285.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 111/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Kpr Finance Private Limited
----Respondent
286.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 112/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Kailash Chand Agarwal S/o Late Shri Ghisa Lal Agarwal
----Respondent
287.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 113/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Parag Modi Son Of Shri Madhu Kant Modi
----Respondent
288.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 114/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Shimbhu Dayal Agarwal S/o Late Shri Binodi Lal Agarwal
----Respondent
289.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 115/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(44 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Parmanand Ramchandra Verma Son Of Shri Ramchandra Verma
----Respondent
290.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 116/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Saroj Garg W/o Shri Vishnu Mohan Garg
----Respondent
291.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 117/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Late Shri Ram Babu Modi S/o Sh. Jaggan Nath Modi
----Respondent
292.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 118/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Kailash Chand Khandelwal, S/o Shri Ganga Sahai Khandelwal
----Respondent
293.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 119/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Shri Girraj Industries
----Respondent
294.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 120/2022
Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3)
----Petitioner
Versus
Dimple Jain Daughter Of Shri Bal Kishan Agarwal
----Respondent
295.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 121/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Mukesh Kumar Lochhib S/o Shri Ramdev Singh Lochhib
----Respondent
296.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 122/2022
The Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(45 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Maru Securities Pvt. Ltd.
----Respondent
297.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 123/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Johari S/o Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Johari
----Respondent
298.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 124/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Sunita Sharma D/o Hari Narain Goswami
----Respondent
299.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 125/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Kalpana Sharma D/o Babu Lal Sharma
----Respondent
300.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 126/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Late Shri Chiranjeev Lal Agarwal
----Respondent
301.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 127/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Archana Maheshwari W/o Shri K.d. Maheshwari D/o Satya Narain
Nayati
----Respondent
302.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 128/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Jamia Arabia Baraktula
----Respondent
303.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 129/2022

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(46 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Prem Lata Agarwal D/o Late Sh. Ram Babu Modi
----Respondent
304.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 130/2022
The Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Maru Securities Pvt. Ltd.
----Respondent
305.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 131/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Amit Joshi S/o Prem Narain Joshi
----Respondent
306.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 132/2022
Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 (1)
----Petitioner
Versus
Manorma Devi Garg Daughter Of Shri Hira Lal Agarwal
----Respondent
307.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 133/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Ganesh Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Mohan Lal Modi
----Respondent
308.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 134/2022
Income-Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Kamlesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Jagan Prasad
----Respondent
309.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 135/2022
Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Petitioner
Versus
Geeta Agarwal W/o Shri Nav Ratan Agarwal
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(47 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

310.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 136/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Johari S/o Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Johari
----Respondent
311.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 137/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Kpr Finance Private Limited
----Respondent
312.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 138/2022
Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1)
----Petitioner
Versus
Deepak Johari S/o Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Johari
----Respondent
313.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 139/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Amit Dubey S/o Mahesh Kumar Dubey
----Respondent
314.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 140/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Kpr Finance Private Limited
----Respondent
315.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 141/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Mohammad Asif Son Of Shri Haji Mohammad Bashir
----Respondent
316.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 142/2022
Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3)
----Petitioner
Versus
Alacrity Exports Private Limited

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(48 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Respondent
317.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 143/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Daya Saini D/o Shri Nand Ram Saini
----Respondent
318.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 144/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Sunita Saxena Wife Of Shri Yogesh Saxena
----Respondent
319.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 145/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Asha Devi Agarwal W/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Agarwal
----Respondent
320.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 146/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Son Of Shri Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal
----Respondent
321.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 147/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Prem Devi Agarwal W/o Shri Kailash Chand Agarwal
----Respondent
322.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 148/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Vishnu Mohan Garg Huf
----Respondent
323.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 149/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(49 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Amit Dubey S/o Mahesh Kumar Dubey
----Respondent
324.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 150/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Parmanand Ramchandra Verma Son Of Shri Ramchandra Verma
----Respondent
325.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 151/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Petitioner
Versus
Bpip Infra Private Limited
----Respondent
326.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 180/2022
Nitin Dhandhia S/o Shri Vinay Chand Dhandhia
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
327.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 182/2022
Nitin Dhandhia S/o Shri Vinay Chand Dhandhia
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
328.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 183/2022
Nitin Dhandhia S/o Shri Vinay Chand Dhandhia
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
329.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 212/2022
Bhikshu Sadhna Kendra Samiti
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
330.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 230/2022
Kamal Kishore Kapoor S/o Lt. Kailash Nath Kapoor
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(50 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
331.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 239/2022
Kamla Devi Meena W/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
332.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 275/2022
Ashish Mangal (Huf)
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax
----Respondent
333.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 306/2022
Sunita Singh Wife Of Shri Veerendra Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
334.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 307/2022
Bhargava Lodha Stock Brokers Private Limited Now
Amalgamated With B. Lodha Securities Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assitant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
335.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 308/2022
Hishmat Tanwani Son Of Shri Hasanand Tanwani
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
336.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 309/2022
Mukesh Kalla Son Of Shri Dr. Shridhar Kalla
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(51 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

337.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 310/2022
Tirupati Agro Industries
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
338.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 325/2022
Rajesh Saharan S/o Beg Raj Saharan
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
339.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 327/2022
Pankaj Birla S/o Ramesh Birla
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
340.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 328/2022
Flory Jain W/o Sandeep Kumar Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
341.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 338/2022
Kalawati D/o Late Shyam Sunder Agarwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
342.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 369/2022
Dinesh Kumar Bhattar Son Of Late Shri Satya Narayan Bhattar
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
343.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 389/2022
Dynamic Cables Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(52 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Respondent
344.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 390/2022
Dynamic Cables Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
345.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 417/2022
Suman Choudhary Wife Of Shri Sanjeev Singh Chodhri
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
346.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 427/2022
Rafiq Son Of Shri Mohammed Daud
----Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
347.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 428/2022
Bhargava Lodha Stock Brokers Private Limited Now
Amalgamated With B. Lodha Securities Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
348.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 432/2022
M/s Ritz Ifracon India Llp
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
349.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 433/2022
Vandana Vishwakarma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
350.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 441/2022
Devendra Kumar Bansal Son Of Shri Govind Ram Bansal
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(53 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1)
----Respondent
351.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 442/2022
Mentor Homes Loans India Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
352.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 455/2022
M/s Soni Industries
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
353.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 456/2022
Vishal Arya S/o Rajendra Arya
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
354.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 458/2022
Manju Arora, D/o Shri Girdhari Lal Khatri
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
355.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 499/2022
Kamal Kumar Jain S/o Shri Umrao Chand Jain
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
356.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 503/2022
Kishan Dulet S/o Shri Hari Narayan Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
357.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 506/2022
Brand India Real Estate Private Limited

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(54 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
358.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 509/2022
Rohini Chadda Daughter Of Shri Rajendra Dutt Kaushik
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
359.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 510/2022
Vcb Trading Llp
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
360.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 517/2022
Vcb Trading Llp
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
361.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 520/2022
Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Modi Son Of Late Shri Ganesh Mal Modi
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
362.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 525/2022
Bhargava Lodha Stock Brokers Private Limited Now
Amalgamated With B. Lodha Securities Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
363.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 539/2022
Vipul Kumar Modi Huf
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(55 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

364.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 541/2022
Yagya Mitra Singh Deo S/o Shri G. Ramchandra
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
365.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 557/2022
Preeti Bakshi Wife Of Dr. Sandeep Bakshi
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
366.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 560/2022
Jaideep Modi Huf
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)
----Respondent
367.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 570/2022
Manzoor Ahmed S/o Mr. Sarajuddin
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
368.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 571/2022
Naresh Kumar Chhatwani S/o Shri Bhagwan Das Chhatwani
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
369.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 574/2022
Sonu Agarwal Daughter Of Ram Babu Agarwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
370.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 582/2022
Vcb Trading Private Limited Now Converted To Vcb Trading Llp
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(56 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Respondent
371.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 583/2022
Mohammed Rafik Maniyar S/o Shri Mohammed Salim Maniyar
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
372.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 607/2022
Trimurty Colonizers And Builders Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
373.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 610/2022
Vcb Trading Llp
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)
----Respondent
374.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 612/2022
Ashok Varandani S/o Shri Arjun Das Varandani
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
375.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 614/2022
Anuradha Dusad D/o Shri Prem Sonkhiya
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
376.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 621/2022
Manisha Ashok D/o Shri Amrit Lal Ahuja
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
377.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 622/2022
Rahul Shandilya S/o Shri Ram Kishore Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(57 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
378.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 623/2022
Radhey Shyam Upadhyay S/o Shri Asha Ram Upadhyay
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
379.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 624/2022
Jai Nebhnani S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Nebhnani
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
380.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 625/2022
Mahendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Verma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
381.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 628/2022
Abdul Sattar S/o Mr. Ghafoor Mohammed
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
382.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 649/2022
Suman Bhattar Wife Of Shri Dinesh Bhattar
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
383.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 654/2022
Vcb Trading Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
384.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 655/2022
Sharad Mishra S/o Shri. Udai Kant Mishra
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(58 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
385.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 657/2022
M/s. Balaji Chamber (A Partnership Firm)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
386.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 658/2022
Sara Lifestyles And Leisures Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
387.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 664/2022
Late Shri Rafiq Ahmed Querashi Son Of Late Shri Abdul Shakoor
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
388.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 666/2022
Sunil Choudhary S/o Shri Subh Karan Choudhary
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
389.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 669/2022
Sharad Mishra S/o Shri Udai Kant Mishra
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
390.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 674/2022
Sandeep Kumar Verma Son Of Shri Goplal Lal Verma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
391.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 675/2022
Ravi Jain Son Of Shri C.k. Jain

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(59 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
392.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 683/2022
Sara Lifestyles And Leisures Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
393.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 684/2022
Shyam Sunder Jhalani
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
394.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 691/2022
Sunil Kumar Modi Huf
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
395.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 693/2022
Radhey Shyam Gupta S/o Sh. Narain Lal Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
396.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 694/2022
Narendra Varandani S/o Sh. Arjun Lal Varandani
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
397.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 695/2022
Sh. Pravin Banthia
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(60 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

398.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 699/2022
Ambience Land Developers India Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent

399.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 701/2022
Sachchiya Enterprises Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
400.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 731/2022
Sachchiya Enterprises Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
401.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 743/2022
Sarla Agarwal Daughter Of Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
402.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 759/2022
Himanshu Buildestates Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
403.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 767/2022
Brij Kishore Mittal Son Of Shri Sajjan Lal Mittal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
404.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 770/2022
Anil Dangayach S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(61 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
405.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 809/2022
Sanjay Pabuwal Son Of Om Prakash Pabuwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
406.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 816/2022
Tej Prakash Kumawat S/o Shri Mangal Chand Kumawat
----Petitioner
Versus
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
407.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 819/2022
Tej Prakash Kumawat S/o Shri Mangal Chand Kumawat
----Petitioner
Versus
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
408.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 836/2022
Anand Lal Lalpuria S/o Sh Nagarmal Lalpuria
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
409.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 855/2022
Mohammed Tahir S/o Akhtar Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
410.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 896/2022
Aishwar Food Products Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
411.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 908/2022
Sunil Kumar Rohit Modani Huf
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(62 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
412.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 920/2022
Rashmi Modani, W/o Mr. Sunil Modani
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
413.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 921/2022
Sanjay Kumar Sohit Modani Huf
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
414.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 922/2022
Suwa Lal Jakhar Son Of Shri Prabhatram
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
415.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 925/2022
Smt. Raj Banthia
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
416.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 930/2022
Kajri Arora D/o Hem Chand Arora
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
417.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 954/2022
Isha Purohit D/o Amresh Kumar Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
418.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 955/2022
Hari Dhobi Son Of Shri Mishra Dhobi

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(63 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
419.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 957/2022
Sh. Devi Lal S/o Late Sh. Ridh Narayan
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
420.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 974/2022
Kapil Taneja Son Of Shri C P Taneja
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
421.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 976/2022
Kapil Taneja, Son Of Shri C P Taneja
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
422.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 978/2022
Goldendunes Buildhome Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
423.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1000/2022
Akshit Sharma Son Of Shri Dinesh Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
424.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1002/2022
Kanta Nagpal Daughter Of Shri Raghuveer Saran Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(64 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

425.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1003/2022
Goldendunes Buildhome Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
426.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1004/2022
Khem Chand Thathera Son Of Shri Nanag Ram Thathera
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
427.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1006/2022
Phool Chand Choudhary S/o Jagdish Prasad Choudhary
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
428.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1007/2022
Akshit Sharma Son Of Shri Dinesh Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
429.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1008/2022
Jagmal Singh Son Of Late Shri Sulhad
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
430.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1009/2022
Mbm Bearings (Rajasthan) Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
431.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1011/2022
Shri Shyamkripa Properties Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(65 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Respondent
432.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1020/2022
Goldendunes Construction Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent

433.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1021/2022
Bindu Singhal D/o Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
434.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1023/2022
Kapil Taneja Son Of Shri C P Taneja
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
435.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1028/2022
Shri Shyamkripa Properties Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
436.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1034/2022
Pashupati Buildhome Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
437.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1048/2022
Nipin Goyal S/o Laxmi Narain Goyal
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
438.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1054/2022
Nipin Goyal S/o Laxmi Narain Goyal
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(66 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
439.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1055/2022
Nipin Goyal S/o Laxmi Narain Goyal
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
440.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1056/2022
Smt. Malini Singh D/o Shri Abnash Chander Chopra
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
441.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1058/2022
Ratika W/o Mahesh Kumar Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
442.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1069/2022
Kuldeep Bhatt S/o Damodar Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
443.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1121/2022
Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/o Roshan Lal Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
444.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1166/2022
Imamuddin Khan, S/o Roshan Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
445.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1201/2022
Deepika Wadhwa Daughter Of Shri Chuni Lal Wadhwa

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(67 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
446.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1202/2022
Pashupati Buildestate Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
447.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1217/2022
Pashupati Buildestate Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
448.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1225/2022
Harsh Bhala S/o Ramakant Bhala
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
449.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1241/2022
Akshit Sharma Son Of Shri Dinesh Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
450.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1246/2022
Akshit Sharma Son Of Shri Dinesh Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
451.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1247/2022
Harsh Bhala S/o Ramakant Bhala
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(68 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

452.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1291/2022
Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent

453. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11818/2021

Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd.
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
Connected With
454. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9443/2021
Nilesh Banger
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer,
----Respondent
455. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9536/2021
Krishan Gopal Banger
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
456. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9538/2021
Durgesh Banger
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer,
----Respondent
457. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9549/2021
Sohan Lal Banger
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
458. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9656/2021
Ladu Ram Banger
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(69 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
459. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9660/2021
Jayesh Banger
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
460. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9948/2021
M/s Bhaval Synthetics India Ltd.
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
461. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11955/2021
M/s S M Industries
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
462. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12984/2021
Mimanshak Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Acit)
----Respondent
463. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13471/2021
Ganpati Multi Commodity Business India Pvt. Ltd.
----Petitioner
Versus
The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
464. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14142/2021
Tara Chand Nachani
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
465. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14143/2021
Nitin Nachani

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(70 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
466. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17116/2021
Priyanka Maheshwari
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (1) Bhilwara
----Respondent
467. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17519/2021
Jitendra Soni
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent
468. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17520/2021
Rohit Kumar Soni
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India
----Respondent

****

469. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10601/2021

Vagaji Ninama
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Ward Banswara
----Respondent
Connected With
470. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18034/2021
Kamini Jindal
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
471. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 673/2022
Suresh Kumar Sharma
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(71 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Versus
Income-Tax Officer, Ward-I, Churu
----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan
Mr. Prateek Kedawat
Mr. Sarvesh Jain
Mr. P.K. Kasliwal
Mr. Priyesh Kasliwal
Mr. Aditya Bohra
Mr. Anant Kashliwal with
Mr. Vaibhav Kasliwal &
Mr. Shashank Kasliwal
Mr. Suresh Sahni
Mr. Gunjan Pathak
Ms. Ishita Rawat,
Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. M. Iqbal
Mr. Vedant Agrawal
Mr. Harish Agrawal
Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with
Mr. Prakul Khurana
Mr. Naresh Gupta,
Ms. Abhilasha Sharma
Mr. Prateek Agarwal
Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta
Mr. Sanjeev Johari
Mr. Rajeev Sogarwal
Mr. Sushil Daga
Mr. Anurag Kalavatiya
Mr. Mahendra Gargieya
Mr. Prateek Kasliwal
Mr. Rakesh Kumar
Mr. Vishal Tiwari
Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar
Mr. Nehpal Yogi
Mr. Jaideep Malik
Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma
Mr. Prabhansh Sharma
Mr. Darshan Shree Verma
Mr. Suveer Gaur on behalf of
Mr. Ajatshatru Mina
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Chundawat
Mr. Pankaj Ghiya
Mr. Mohit Khandelwal
Mr. Prakhar Gupta
Mr. Aniroodh Mathur
Mr. Krishnaveer Singh
Mr. Rohit Solanki
Mr. S.L. Poddaur
Mr. Sanjeev Johari
Mr. M.S. Bhati
Mr. Lalit Parihar

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
(72 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

Mr. Subhankar Johari
Mr. Abhishek Mehta
Mr. Anjay Kothari
(All through Video Conferencing)

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur with
Mr. Nikhil Simlote
(for the respondents in Writ Petitions &
for appellants in Special Appeals)
Mr. Sandeep Pathak
Mr. Anuroop Singhi
Ms. Parinitoo Jain
Mr. Kamal Kishore Bissa
(All through Video Conferencing)

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
(THROUGH VC)

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 18/01/2022, 19/01/2022,
20/01/2022, 21/01/2022 & 24/01/2022)

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 27/01/2022

(REPORTABLE) By the Court: (Per Akil Kureshi, CJ):

1. This group of cases involves writ petitions and D.B. Special Appeals against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Central issues arising in all these proceedings are common with little different in material facts. They were heard on different dates but due to commonality of issues required to be considered, they were clubbed together for disposal through common judgment.

2. In the writ petitions the petitioners have challenged respective notices issued by the Assessing Officers under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) for reopening assessments for various assessment years. All these notices have been issued after 01.04.2021 and pertain to relevant period which is prior to the said date. The petitioners contend that since the notices are issued after 01.04.2021, the same could be done only as per the provisions contained in the Act effective from (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (73 of 113) [CW-969/2022] 01.04.2021. Since in the present cases the notices are issued under the old provisions which have already been substituted, the notices are invalid. The petitioners have also challenged portions of two notifications issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short 'CBDT') clarifying that provisions of Sections 148, 149 and 151 of the Act as they stood on 31.03.2021 shall apply for the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 148 for the past period. According to the petitioners, this explanation is beyond the jurisdiction of CBDT.

3. In Special Appeals, the revenue has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2021 in case of BPIP Infra Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13297/2021), reported in 2021 (12) TMI 207, in which relying on a decision of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India through its Revenue Secretary North Block And Ors. (Writ Tax Petition No.524/2021), dated 30.09.2021, reported in 2021(10) TMI 517, the learned Single Judge had quashed the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act.

4. Since material facts emerging from the record are undisputable and since the outcome of this litigation depends on pure questions of law, we have proceeded to hear these petitions and appeals finally without waiting for the replies of the department on factual aspects. Learned counsel for both the sides had also agreed to this formula.

5. Civil Writ Petition No.969/2022 is taken as a lead case. Facts may be noted in brief from the petition. The petitioner is an individual. For the assessment year 2013-14 the petitioner had filed return of income on 01.10.2013 declaring total income of (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (74 of 113) [CW-969/2022] Rs.4,79,420/-. It appears that such return was accepted by the department without scrutiny. To reopen such assessment for the assessment year 2013-14, the respondent No.1 Income Tax Officer Jaipur issued a notice on 08.04.2021 under Section 148 of the Act. Case of the petitioner is that this notice which has been issued under provisions contained in the Act for reopening of the assessment which existed prior to 01.04.2021, is bad in law since with effect from 01.04.2021 new provisions have been introduced in the Act which are in substitution of the old provisions. According to the petitioner, since undisputably the reassessment provisions introduced in the statute with effect from 01.04.2021 have not been followed in the present case, the notice is bad in law. According to the petitioner, limitation for issuing notice would be as provided in amended section 149 of the Act. Before issuing notice nuder section 148, procedure prescribed in section 148A must be followed. In the present case the notice was time barred as per the amended section 149 and procedure under Section 148A was not followed. As an extension of this argument, the petitioner contends that this defect could not be cured through an explanation issued by the CBDT under purported exercise of power of delegated legislation. We would elaborate on these aspects of the matter once we take note of the existing and the substituted provisions for reassessment.

Provisions for reassessment prior to 01.04.2021:

6. As is well known, Chapter XIV of the Act pertains to procedure for assessment. This Chapter also contains provisions for reassessment which permits the department to reopen the assessments under certain circumstances. As per Section 147 as it stood prior to substitution by the Finance Act, 2021, if the (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (75 of 113) [CW-969/2022] Assessing Officer had reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for any assessment year he could subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153 of the Act assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which had escaped assessment. As per Section 148 of the Act before making any such assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 the Assessing Officer has to serve a notice on the assessee requiring him to furnish the return of his income. Sub-section (2) of Section 148 provided that the Assessing Officer shall before issuing any such notice record his reasons for doing so. As per sub-section (1) of Section 149 read with Section 147, in case of scrutiny assessment no notice under Section 148 could be issued beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year unless the assessee had failed to file the return or income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment and in which case also no notice could be issued beyond a period of six years from the end of relevant assessment year. This period would extend to 16 years in cases where income in relation to any asset which has escaped assessment is located outside India. Section 151 of the Act pertained to sanction for issuance of notice. As per sub-section (1) of Section 151, no notice could be issued under Section 148 by the Assessing Officer after expiry of a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it was a fit case for issuance of such notice. As per sub-section (2) (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (76 of 113) [CW-969/2022] of Section 151 of the Act, in a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no notice could be issued by the Assessing Officer who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a case fit for issuance of notice. Section 153 of the Act contained provisions for time limit for completion of assessments and reassessments. This in nutshell was the scheme of reassessment which existed prior to the amendments made in the Act by the Finance Act, 2021.

Provisions for reassessment contained in the Act with effect from 01.04.2021:

7. This entire scheme of reassessment has undergone major changes under the Finance Act, 2021 which amendments have been brought into effect from 01.04.2021. Section 147 has been simplified. As per the provision as it stands now if any income chargeable to tax in the case of an assessee has escaped assessment for any assessment year, the Assessing Officer may subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year. The distinction between the cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the failure of the assessee to disclose truly or fully all material facts and the rest is done away with.

8. As per Section 148 of the Act before making assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 and subject to the provisions of Section 148A, the Assessing Officer has to serve on the assessee a notice along with a copy of the order passed if required under clause (d) of Section 148A requiring him to furnish (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (77 of 113) [CW-969/2022] the return within the specified time and in prescribed form. The proviso to Section 148 provides that no notice shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority for issuing such notice. Explanation (1) to Section 148 of the Act explains what "information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment" means. Explanation (2) lists the situations where the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to have information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

9. Section 148A is newly inserted and it pertains to conducting enquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice under Section 148 and reads as under:-

"148A.--The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under section 148,--

(a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment;

(b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, with the prior approval of specified authority, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a);

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)

(78 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

(c)consider the reply of assessee furnished, if any, in response to the show-cause notice referred to in clause

(b);

(d) decide, on the basis of material available on record including reply of the assessee, whether or not it is a fit case to issue a notice under section 148, by passing an order, with the prior approval of specified authority, within one month from the end of the month in which the reply referred to in clause (c) is received by him, or where no such reply is furnished, within one month from the end of the month in which time or extended time allowed to furnish a reply as per clause (b) expires:

Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply in a case where,--

(a) a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A in the case of the assessee on or after the 1st day of April, 2021; or

(b) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized in a search under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A, in the case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, belongs to the assessee; or

(c) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any books of account or documents, seized in a search under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A, in case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relate to, the assessee.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, specified authority means the specified authority referred to in section 151."

10. As per this newly introduced provision thus before issuing notice under Section 148, the Assessing Officer may conduct any enquiry if required; with the prior approval of the specified authority with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. He has to (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (79 of 113) [CW-969/2022] provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving on him a notice to show cause within the specified time which shall not be less than seven days but not exceeding 30 days from the date of issue of notice but which can be extended by him on an application by the assessee. Such notice would be to call upon the assessee why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. As per clause (c), the Assessing Officer has to consider the reply of the assessee furnished, if any, in response to such notice. As per clause (d), the Assessing Officer would decide on the basis of material available on record including the reply of the asssessee whether or not the case is fit for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, for which purpose he would pass an order with the prior approval of the specified authority within one month from the end of the month in which the reply from the assessee is received by him and where no such reply is furnished, within one month from the end of the month in which time or extended time for furnishing reply expires. Proviso to Section 148A lists the cases where this procedure would not apply. As per the explanation to Section 148A the specified authority means the authority referred to in Section 151.

11. Section 149 also underwent major changes in time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. This provision reads as under:-

"149.(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,--

(a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b);

(b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (80 of 113) [CW-969/2022] unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more for that year:

Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 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 this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021:

Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply in a case, where a notice under section 153A, or section 153C read with section 153A, is required to be issued in relation to a search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021:

Provided also that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation as per this section, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee, as per show- cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A or the period during which the proceeding under section 148A is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded:

Provided also that where immediately after the exclusion of the period referred to in the immediately preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for passing an order under clause (d) of section 148A is less than seven days, such remaining period shall be extended to seven days and the period of limitation under this sub- section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly.

Explanation.--For the purposes of clause (b) of this sub- section, "asset" shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section

151."

12. As per sub-section (1) of Section 149 as it stands now, time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 is three years from the (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (81 of 113) [CW-969/2022] end of relevant assessment year unless the case falls under clause

(b) where the period available for issuing such notice is ten years. Clause (b) applies to cases where the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of accounts or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of asset which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to total 50 lacs or more. Explanation to Section 149 provides that for the purpose of clause (b) the asset shall include immovable property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.

13. Sub-section (1) of Section 149 contains four provisos which will come up for discussion later in the context of interpretation of these provisions and in the context of the question whether after substitution the substituted provisions would continue to apply.

14. Section 151 pertaining to sanction for issue of notice has also been amended. As per the amended provisions the specified authority for the purposes of Sections 148 and 148A would be (i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year and (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year.

15. Section 153 containing time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation has also been amended. It is not necessary to compare the old and the new provisions except to record in brief that the time limits have been shortened.

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)

                                            (82 of 113)                [CW-969/2022]



Comparison      between          old      and        new        provisions     for

reassessment

16.   A   comparison     of     the     existing         and    the   substituted

reassessment proceedings contained in the Act would show that earlier distinction of time limit of four years for issuing notice under Section 148 in normal cases and six years in cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts, has been done away with and time limits are revised. New time limits provided are three years unless income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount Rs.50 lacs or more and in which case the time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 applicable would be ten years from the end of relevant assessment year. Section 147 previously referred to term "the Assessing Officer has reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Under proviso to Section 148 as it stands now, no notice for the reassessment would be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. This shift from the Assessing Officer having reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment to the Assessing Officer should have information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment would come up for consideration and interpretation in appropriate cases in future. Since we are not directly concerned with this change it is not necessary for us to delve on this issue.

17. The major change which the new regime of reassessment has brought about is introduction of Section 148A of the Act for the first time. As is well known the Supreme Court in case of GKN (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (83 of 113) [CW-969/2022] Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), had introduced a requirement of the Assessing Officer providing reasons recorded for issuing notice for reopening of assessment upon being demanded by the assessee and to consider and dispose of his objections to the notice for reopening, if so raised. Section 148A codifies this procedure in modified form. Clause (a) of Section 148A of the Act permits the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiry if required with the prior approval of the specified authority with respect to the information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Clause

(b) of Section 148A requires the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by issuing notice calling upon him why notice under Section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Clause (c) requires the Assessing Officer to consider the reply of the assessee if furnished and as per clause (d) he would decide on the basis of material available on record and the reply if furnished, whether it is a fit case for issuing notice under Section 148.

18. Section 148A goes far beyond the mechanism provided by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) 1. Under the said mechanism the assessee would have access to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer after receipt of notice under Section 148. His right was limited to raising objections which would be disposed of by the Assessing Officer. Under the new scheme of Section 148A, the Assessing Officer has to first provide an opportunity to the assessee why notice under Section 1(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (84 of 113) [CW-969/2022] 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Though clause (b) of Section 148A does not so specify, since the notice calls upon the assessee why assessment should not be reopened on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the requirement of furnishing such information to the assessee is inbuilt in the said provision. The assessee thus has an opportunity to oppose even issuance of notice under Section 148 and he could legitimately expect that the Assessing Officer provides him the information which according to him suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer has a duty to decide whether it is a fit case for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. Such decision has to be taken on the basis of material available on record and the reply of the assessee, if any filed. The decision has to be taken within the time prescribed.

19. While the Finance Act, 2021 was not yet in horizon, around third week of March, 2020 the country was hit by spread of corona virus which led to nationwide strict lockdowns which put the lives of citizens and even the Government machinery totally out of gear. It became virtually impossible for individuals as well as Government authorities to adhere to several statutory time limits which in many cases were inflexible. To overcome these difficulties in the context of tax collections, the Government first introduced the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions), Ordinance, 2020 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Relaxation Ordinance, 2020'). The provisions contained in the said Ordinance would apply to specified Acts which were defined in clause (a) of Section 2(1) which included the Income Tax Act, 1961. As per (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (85 of 113) [CW-969/2022] sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Ordinance, 2020, any time limit provided in the specified Acts which fell during the period from 20.03.2020 to 29.06.2020 or such other date after 29.06.2020 as the Central Government may by notification specify for completion or compliance of the action and where such completion and compliance had not been made within the time then the time limit for such purpose notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act would stand extended to 30.06.2020 or such other date after 30.06.2020 as the Central Government may by notification specify in this behalf. The Relaxation Ordinance, 2020 was replaced by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Relaxation Act, 2020') introduced with effect from 29.09.2020. As per sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020 the time limits specified in the specified Acts which fell during the period from 20.03.2020 to 31.12.2020 or such other date after 31.12.2020 as the Central Government may notify, were extended to 31.03.2021 or such other date after 31.03.2021 as the Central Government may by notification specify. Such extension would operate notwithstanding anything contained in the specified act.

20. In exercise of powers delegated under the Extension Ordinance, the Central Government had extended time limits by issuing notification. Since there is no controversy about these extensions, it is not necessary to refer to them in this judgment.

21. In exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020, the Government of India (Central Board of Direct Taxes) issued a notification dated 31.03.2021 and extended, besides others, time limit for issuance of notice under (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (86 of 113) [CW-969/2022] Section 148 of the Act. This notification contained an explanation which is under challenge. The notification reads as under:-

"S.O. 1432(E).--In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (38 of 2020) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), and in partial modification of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue) No.93/2020 dated the 31st December, 2020, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O. 4805(E), dated the 31st December, 2020, the Central Government hereby specifies that,--

(A) where the specified Act is the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Income-tax Act) and, --

(a) the completion of any action referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 3 of the Act relates to passing of an order under sub-section (13) of section 144C or issuance of notice under section 148 as per time-limit specified in section 149 or sanction under section 151 of the Income-tax Act,

--

(i) the 31st day of March, 2021 shall be the end date of the period during which the time-limit, specified in, or prescribed or notified under, the Income-tax Act falls for the completion of such action;

and

(ii) the 30th day of April, 2021 shall be the end date to which the time-limit for the completion of such action shall stand extended.

Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of issuance of notice under section 148 as per time-limit specified in section 149 or sanction under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, under this sub-clause, the provisions of section 148, section 149 and section 151 of the Income-tax Act, as the case may be, as they stood as on the 31st day of March 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, shall apply.

(b) the compliance of any action referred to in clause

(b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act relates to intimation of Aadhaar number to the (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (87 of 113) [CW-969/2022] prescribed authority under sub-section (2) of section 139AA of the Income-tax Act, the time-limit for compliance of such action shall stand extended to the 30th day of June, 2021.

(B) where the specified Act is the Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act) and the completion of any action referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act relates to sending an intimation under sub-section (1) of section 168 of the Finance Act, --

(i) the 31st day of March, 2021 shall be the end date of the period during which the timelimit, specified in, or prescribed or notified under, the Finance Act falls for the completion of such action; and

(ii) the 30th day of April, 2021 shall be the end date to which the time-limit for the completion of such action shall stand extended.

[F. No. 370142/35/2020-TPL]"

22. Yet another extension was issued by the CBDT under notification dated 27.04.2021 extending, besides others, time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act to 30.06.2021. This notification also contained an explanation similar to one contained in the notification dated 31.03.2021. It is not necessary to reproduce the entire notification. Reproduction of only the explanation, which is also under challenge, would be sufficient and reads as under:-

"Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of issuance of notice under section 148 as per time-limit specified in section 149 or sanction under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, under this sub-clause, the provisions of section 148, section 149 and section 151 of the Income-tax Act, as the case may be, as they stood as on the 31st day of March 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021, shall apply."

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)

                                           (88 of 113)              [CW-969/2022]



23.   In background of        such facts and statutory provisions

applicable the learned counsel for the assessee had raised following contentions:-

(i) Upon enactment of the Finance Act, 2021 the provisions contained in the Act pertaining to reassessment of income stood substituted by new set of provisions. Upon such substitution the old provisions ceased to exist. There is no indication either in express terms or implied in the newly introduced provisions that the legislature desired to retain the old provisions for the past period. In that view of the matter any action of issuance of notice for reassessment which is taken after 01.04.2021, must be in accordance with the amended provisions.

(ii) Insertion of new provisions and substitution of the old would have the effect of repealing the old provisions which would cease to have any applicability thereafter. Our attention was drawn to the speech of the Finance Minister made in the Parliament explaining the proposed provisions for reassessment.

Our attention was also drawn to notes on clauses explaining these provisions. It was contended that the speech of the Finance Minister and these notes on clauses leave no manner of doubt that the new provisions for reassessment contained in the Finance Act, 2021 were meant to have effect from 01.04.2021 and that the old provisions would cease to have any existence.

(iii) It was contended that the Relaxation Act, 2020 merely authorised the Government to extend the time limits contained in the specified Acts. This did not include power to issue any explanation or clarification. The subordinate legislature must submit to the limits of powers vested in it by the parent Act. By way of explanation, the subordinate legislature cannot revive the (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (89 of 113) [CW-969/2022] statutory provisions which had lapsed. The explanations contained in the notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 are thus ultra vires the powers of the subordinate legislation and therefore unconstitutional.

(iv) It was contended that under the taxing statutes there is no scope for intendment. If two views are possible, one favouring the assessee should be taken. It was pointed out that the two Divisions Benches of Allahabad and Delhi High Courts have already decided these issues in favour of the assessees. Being the pan- India legislation in the field of taxation, the Court should strive to achieve consistency. The view adopted by two Division Benches should therefore appeal to the Court.

(v) It was lastly contended that the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of BPIP Infra Private Limited (supra) 2 has committed no error in allowing the writ petitions relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra)3.

24. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the revenue strongly opposed these petitions and pressed for allowing their appeals. They contended that the substitution of old provisions for reopening of assessment would not obliterate the previous set of statutory provisions. They would continue to have effect for the past period. In other words, if the notice for reopening of assessment was issued for any period prior to 01.04.2021, the provisions as they stood at the relevant time would apply. In such a case there was no requirement of following the procedure laid down under Section 148A of the Act before issuing notice under Section 148. They would point out that present situation is 2 2021( 12) TMI 207 3 2021(10) TMI 517 (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (90 of 113) [CW-969/2022] unprecedented and has arisen on account on account of spread of corona virus. This unprecedented situation required taking extraordinary measures. The Relaxation Ordinance, 2020 and Relaxation Act, 2020 were therefore framed giving extension of time limits for taking actions and making compliances. These extensions were for the benefit of both, actions that had to be taken by the revenue as well as compliances which had to be made by the assessees. The assessees cannot take advantage of the unusual circumstances prevailing on account of spread of corona virus. The CBDT therefore in exercise of powers conferred in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020, has issued necessary explanation which merely clarifies which statutory provisions any way provide. This explanation makes explicit what is otherwise implicit under the Act. The same is well within the power of the Government.

25. Two questions of law which arise for our consideration are as under:-

(i) Whether after introduction of new provisions for reassessment of income by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021, substituting the then existing provisions, would the substituted provisions survive and could be used for issuing notices for reassessment for the past period?

(ii) Whether the explanations contained in the CBDT circulars dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 are legal and valid?

26. At the outset we may note how other High Courts have viewed this situation. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (91 of 113) [CW-969/2022] in case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra)4 has ruled in favour of the assessee making following observations:-

"64. As to the first line of reasoning applied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as noted above, there can be no exception to the principle - an Act of legislative substitution is a composite act. Thereby, the legislature chooses to put in place another or, replace an existing provision of law. It involves simultaneous omission and re-enactment. By its very nature, once a new provision has been put in place of a pre-existing provision, the earlier provision cannot survive, except for things done or already undertaken to be done or things expressly saved to be done. In absence of any express saving clause and, since no reassessment proceeding had been initiated prior to the Act of legislative substitution, the second aspect of the matter does not require any further examination.

65. Therefore, other things apart, undeniably, on 01.04.2021, by virtue of plain/unexcepted effect of Section 1(2)(a) of the Finance Act, 2021, the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 149, 151 (as those provisions existed upto 31.03.2021), stood substituted, along with a new provision enacted by way of Section 148A of that Act. In absence of any saving clause, to save the pre-existing (and now substituted) provisions, the revenue authorities could only initiate reassessment proceeding on or after 01.04.2021, in accordance with the substituted law and not the pre-existing laws.

66. It is equally true that the Enabling Act that was pre-existing, had been enforced prior to enforcement of the Finance Act, 2021. It confronted the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021, as it came into existence on 01.04.2021. In the Enabling Act and the Finance Act, 2021, there is absence, both of any express provision in itself or to delegate the function - to save applicability of the provisions of sections 147, 148, 149 or 151 of the Act, as they existed up to 31.03.2021. Plainly, the Enabling Act is an enactment to extend timelines only. Consequently, it flows from the above - 01.04.2021 onwards, all references to issuance of notice contained in the Enabling Act must be read as reference to the substituted provisions only. Equally there is no difficulty in applying the pre- existing provisions to pending proceedings. Looked in that manner, the laws are harmonized.



4   2021(10) TMI 517


                       (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)
                                      (92 of 113)          [CW-969/2022]

67. It may also be not forgotten, a reassessment proceeding is not just another proceeding emanating from a simple show cause notice. Both, under the pre- existing law as also under the law enforced from 01.04.2021, that proceeding must arise only upon jurisdiction being validly assumed by the assessing authority. Till such time jurisdiction is validly assumed by assessing authority - evidenced by issuance of the jurisdictional notice under Section 148, no re- assessment proceeding may ever be said to be pending before the assessing authority. The admission of the revenue authorities that all re-assessment notices involved in this batch of writ petitions had been issued after the enforcement date 01.04.2021, is tell-tale and critical. As a fact, no jurisdiction had been assumed by the assessing authority against any of the petitioners, under the unamended law. Hence, no time extension could ever be made under section 3(1) of the Enabling Act, read with the Notifications issued thereunder.

68. The submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General of India that the provision of Section 3(1) of the Enabling Act gave an overriding effect to that Act and therefore saved the provisions as existed under the unamended law, also cannot be accepted. That saving could arise only if jurisdiction had been validly assumed before the date 01.04.2021. In the first place Section 3(1) of the Enabling Act does not speak of saving any provision of law. It only speaks of saving or protecting certain proceedings from being hit by the rule of limitation. That provision also does not speak of saving any proceeding from any law that may be enacted by the Parliament, in future. For both reasons, the submission advanced by learned Additional Solicitor General of India is unacceptable.

69. Even otherwise the word 'notwithstanding' creating the non obstante clause, does not govern the entire scope of Section 3(1) of the Enabling Act. It is confined to and may be employed only with reference to the second part of Section 3(1) of the Enabling Act i.e. to protect proceedings already under way. There is nothing in the language of that provision to admit a wider or sweeping application to be given to that clause - to serve a purpose not contemplated under that provision and the enactment, wherein it appears.

70. The upshot of the above reasoning is, the Enabling Act only protected certain proceedings that may have become time barred on 20.03.2021, upto the date 30.06.2021. Correspondingly, by delegated legislation incorporated by the Central Government, it may extend that time limit. That time limit alone stood extended upto 30 June, 2021. We also note, the (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (93 of 113) [CW-969/2022] learned Additional Solicitor General of India may not be entirely correct in stating that no extension of time was granted beyond 30.06.2021. Vide Notification No. 3814 dated 17.09.2021, issued under section 3(1) of the Enabling Act, further extension of time has been granted till 31.03.2022. In absence of any specific delegation made, to allow the delegate of the Parliament, to indefinitely extend such limitation, would be to allow the validity of an enacted law i.e. the Finance Act, 2021 to be defeated by a purely colourable exercise of power, by the delegate of the Parliament.

71. Here, it may also be clarified, Section 3(1) of the Enabling Act does not itself speak of reassessment proceeding or of Section 147 or Section 148 of the Act as it existed prior to 01.04.2021. It only provides a general relaxation of limitation granted on account of general hardship existing upon the spread of pandemic COVID -19. After enforcement of the Finance Act, 2021, it applies to the substituted provisions and not the pre-existing provisions.

72. Reference to reassessment proceedings with respect to pre-existing and now substituted provisions of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act has been introduced only by the later Notifications issued under the Act. Therefore, the validity of those provisions is also required to be examined. We have concluded as above, that the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 148A, 149, 150 and 151 substituted the old/pre- existing provisions of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021. We have further concluded, in absence of any proceeding of reassessment having been initiated prior to the date 01.04.2021, it is the amended law alone that would apply. We do not see how the delegate i.e. Central Government or the CBDT could have issued the Notifications, plainly to over reach the principal legislation. Unless harmonized as above, those Notifications would remain invalid.

73. Unless specifically enabled under any law and unless that burden had been discharged by the respondents, we are unable to accept the further submission advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India that practicality dictates that the reassessment proceedings be protected. Practicality, if any, may lead to legislation. Once the matter reaches Court, it is the legislation and its language, and the interpretation offered to that language as may primarily be decisive to govern the outcome of the proceeding. To read practicality into enacted law is dangerous. Also, it would involve legislation by the Court, an idea and exercise we carefully tread away from."

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)

(94 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

27. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in case of Mon Mohan Kohli Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 2021 (12) TMI 664, has decided such issue in favour of the assessee. Following observations may be noted:-

"42. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that by virtue of Section 1 (2)(a) of the Finance Act, 2021, the substituted Sections 147, 148, 149 and 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to reopening of assessments came into force on 1st April, 2021. The significance of the expression 'shall' in Section 1 (2)(a) of the Finance Act, 2021 cannot be lost sight of. This is in contrast to the language under Section 1(2)(b) which states that Sections 108 to 123 of the Finance Act, 2021 shall come into force on such date, as the Central Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. The Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2021, too, clarifies that its Sections 2 to 88 which included the substituted Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will take effect from 1st April, 2021. There is also no power with the Executive/Respondents/Revenue to defer/postpone the implementation of Sections 2 to 88 of the Finance Act, 2021 which includes the substituted Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

43. It is settled law that the law prevailing on the date of issuance of the notice under Section 148 has to be applied. [See: Foramer Vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed by the Supreme Court in (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC), Varkey Jacob Co. Vs. CIT and Anr. (2002) 257 ITR 231 (Ker), Smt. N. Illamathy vs. ITO (2020) 275 taxman 25/195 CTR 543 (Mad)(HC), RK Upadhyay v Shanabhai, (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC); CIT v Rameshwar Prasad, (1991) 188 ITR 291 (All HC); Dr. Onkar Dutt Sharma v CIT, (1967) 65ITR 359 (All HC)].

44. This Court is of the view that had the intention of the Legislature been to keep the erstwhile provisions alive, it would have introduced the new provisions with effect from 1st July, 2021, which has not been done. Accordingly, the notices relating to any assessment year issued under Section 148 on or after 1st April, 2021 have to comply with the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 148A, 149 and 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as specifically substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1st April, 2021.

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)

(95 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

46. Upon perusal of Section 3(1) of Relaxation Act, 2020, this Court is of the view that it extends only the time lines. Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020 stipulates that where, any time limit has been stipulated in a specified Act which falls between the period 20th day of March, 2020 and 31st day of December, 2020 for the completion or compliance of such action as issuance of any notice under the provisions of the specified Acts and where completion or compliance of such action has not been made within such time, then the time limit for completion or compliance of such action shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Acts, stand extended. It is important to bear in mind that Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020 does not empower the Central Government to postpone the applicability of any provision which has been enacted from a particular date. There is a difference between extension of time of an action which is getting time barred and applicability of a provision which has been enacted and notified by the Legislature. Relaxation Act, 2020 nowhere delegates power to the Central Government to postpone the date of applicability of a new law enacted by the Legislature. Relaxation Act, 2020 also does not put any embargo on the power of the Legislature to legislate.

47. Also, the impugned Explanations in the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 are beyond the power delegated to the Government, as the Relaxation Act does not give power to Government to extend the erstwhile Sections 147 to 151 beyond 3 1st March, 2021 and/or defer the operation of substituted provisions enacted by the Finance Act, 2021. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 148A had to be complied with before issuing notices under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the submission of the respondents-

Revenue based on the judgment passed by Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja Vs. UOI (supra) does not find favour with this Court. After all, it is settled law that Executive cannot make or change law of the land without specific Authority from Parliament to do so.

48. Consequently, the Relaxation Act, 2020 and Notifications issued thereunder can only change the time-lines applicable to the issuance of a Section 148 notice, but they cannot change the statutory provisions applicable thereto which are required to be strictly complied with. Further, just as the Executive cannot legislate, it cannot impede the implementation of law made by the Legislature."

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)

(96 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

28. The learned Single Judge of this Court in case of BPIP Infra Private Limited (supra)5 has noted the said decision of the Allahabad High Court in case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra)6 and allowed the writ petitions of the assessees in similar circumstances. This judgment is of course in appeal before us.

29. A learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in a recent judgment in case of Bagaria Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (WPO No.244/2021) decided on 17.01.2022, has adopted the same view as of Allahabad and Delhi High Court and allowed the writ petition.

30. The sole dissenting view adopted is of a learned Single Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court in case of Palak Khatuja and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2021) 438 ITR

622. It was a case in which the learned Single Judge upheld the validity of the notice of reassessment on the ground that by virtue of notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 the application of Section 148 of the Act which was originally existing before amendment was deferred, meaning the reassessment mechanism as prevailing prior to 31.03.2021 was saved by the notification.

31. We may now attempt to answer these questions ourselves with the aid of statutory provisions and law laid down in various decisions cited before us we may summarise certain principles applicable in the field of taxation and which principles would be invoked in the course of the judgment:-

(i) A taxing statute must be interpreted strictly. Equity has no place in taxation nor while interpreting taxing statute intendment would have any place.

5 2021( 12) TMI 207 6 2021(10) TMI 517 (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (97 of 113) [CW-969/2022] In case of State of W.B. Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors., (2004) 10 SCC 201, referring to Article 265 of the Constitution which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law, it was observed that in interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Taxing statutes cannot be interpreted by any presumption or assumption. A taxing statute has to be interpreted in light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any deficiency. Before taxing any person it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of charging section by clear words used in the section and if the words are ambiguous and open to two interpretations, the benefit of interpretation is given to the subject. There is nothing unjust in the tax payer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature's failure to express itself clearly.

A Constitution Bench in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar And Company And Ors., (2018) 9 SCC 1, had reiterated these principles. It was a case where on a reference to the Larger Bench the Supreme Court was considering a question whether an ambiguity in a tax exemption provision or notification, the same must be interpreted so as to favour the assessee. Making a clear distinction between a charging provision of a taxing statute and exemption notification which waives a tax or a levy normally imposed, the Supreme Court observed as under:-

"14. We may, here itself notice that the distinction in interpreting a taxing provision (charging provision) and in the matter of interpretation of exemption (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (98 of 113) [CW-969/2022] notification is too obvious to require any elaboration. Nonetheless, in a nutshell, we may mention that, as observed in Surendra Cotton Oil Mills Case, in the matter of interpretation of charging Section of a taxation statute, strict Rule of interpretation is mandatory and if there are two views possible in the matter of interpretation of a charging section, the one favourable to the Assessee need to be applied. There is, however, confusion in the matter of interpretation of exemption notification published under taxation statutes and in this area also, the decisions are galore.

24. In construing penal statutes and taxation statutes, the Court has to apply strict Rule of interpretation. The penal statute which tends to deprive a person of right to life and liberty has to be given strict interpretation or else many innocent might become victims of discretionary decision making. Insofar as taxation statutes are concerned, Article 265 of the Constitution prohibits the State from extracting tax from the citizens without authority of law. It is axiomatic that taxation statute has to be interpreted strictly because the State cannot at their whims and fancies burden the citizens without authority of law. In other words, when the competent Legislature mandates taxing certain persons/certain objects in certain circumstances, it cannot be expanded/interpreted to include those, which were not intended by the legislature."

(ii) Being the central legislation of pan-India effect and operating in the field of taxation, the view of another High Court would have considerable persuasive value. In other words, the High Court would have due regard to the view already expressed by another High Court and to the possible extent prefer consistency of views across the country over discord. Unless the view expressed by another High Court is plainly unacceptable to the Court, the High Court would lean in favour of the well considered view already expressed by another Court.

(iii) The speech made the Finance Minister on the floor of the House explaining the budgetary provisions would provide a useful tool in interpreting the taxing provisions particularly in case (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (99 of 113) [CW-969/2022] the dispute about their interpretation arises. When the Finance Minister who has piloted the budget in her speech explains the provisions contained in the Finance Bill and elaborates on the mischief which prevails and which is sought to be cured by substituting the existing statutory provisions, the explanation rendered by the Finance Minister has considerable importance in the context of correct interpretation of such provisions.

In case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (1975) 101 ITR 234 it was observed as under:-

"It is true that it is dangerous and may be misleading to gather the meaning of the words used in an enactment merely from what was said by any speaker in the course of a debate in Parliament on the subject. Such a speech cannot be used to defeat or detract from a meaning which clearly emerges from a consideration of the enacting words actually used. But, in the case before us, the real meaning and purpose of the words used cannot be understood at all satisfactorily without referring to the past history of legislation on the subject and the speech of the mover of the amendment who was, undoubtedly, in the best position to explain what defect in the law the amendment had sought to remove.

It was not just the speech of any member in Parliament. It was the considered statement of the Finance Minister who was proposing the amendment for a particular reason which he clearly indicated. If the reason given by him only elucidates what is also deducible from the words used in the amended provision, we do not see why we should refuse to take it into consideration as an aid to a correct interpretation. It harmonises with and clarifies the real intent of the words used. Must we, in such circumstances, ignore it?"

In case of K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in (1981) 131 ITR 597 it was observed as under:-

"Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (100 of 113) [CW-969/2022] interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the Mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought to be remedied by the legislation and the object and purpose for which the legislation is enacted. This is in accord with the recent trend in juristic thought not only in Western countries but also in India that interpretation of a statute being an exercise in the ascertainment of meaning, everything which is logically relevant should be admissible. In fact there are at least three decisions of this Court, one in Sole Trustee Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT:

[1975]101 ITR 234, the other in Indian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT: [1975]101 ITR 796 and the third in Additional CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR 1/[1980] 2 Taxman 501, where the speech made by the Finance Minister while introducing the exclusionary clause in Section 2 Clause (15) of the Act was relied upon by the Court for the purpose of ascertaining what was the reason for introducing that clause. The speech made by the Finance Minister while moving the amendment introducing Sub-section (2) clearly states what were the circumstances in which Sub-section (2) came to be passed, what was the mischief for which Section 52 as it then stood did not provide and which was sought to be remedied by the enactment of Sub-

section (2) and why the enactment of Sub-section (2) was found necessary. It is apparent from the speech of the Finance Minister that Sub-section(2) was enacted for the purpose of reaching those cases where there was under-statement of consideration in respect of the transfer or to put it differently, the actual consideration received for the transfer was 'considerably more' than that declared or shown by the assessee, but which were not covered by Sub- section (1) because the transferee was not directly or indirectly connected with the assessee. The object and purpose of Sub-section (2), as explicated from the speech of the Finance Minister, was not to strike at honest and bonafide transactions where the consideration for the transfer was correctly disclosed by the assessee but to bring within the net of taxation those transactions where the consideration in respect of the transfer was shown at a lesser figure than that actually received by the assessee, so that they do not escape the charge of tax on capital gains by under- statement of the consideration. This was real object and purpose of the enactment of Sub-section (2) and the interpretation of this sub-section must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose. We must therefore accept as the underlying assumption of Sub-section (2) that there is under-statement of consideration in respect of the transfer and Sub- (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)

                                              (101 of 113)                [CW-969/2022]


     section    (2)  applies  only    where    the   actual

consideration received by the assessee is not disclosed and the consideration declared in respect of the transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received."

(iv) It is well accepted that reopening a completed assessment causes great hardship to the assessee and also brings uncertainty. In a judgment in case of Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [2013] 350 ITR 266(Guj), a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court had observed as under:-

"41. The powers under Section 147 of the Act are special powers and peculiar in nature where a quasi-judicial order previously passed after full hearing and which has otherwise become final is subject to reopening on certain grounds. Ordinarily, a judicial or quasi-judicial order is subject to appeal, revision or even review if statute so permits but not liable to be reopened by the same authority. Such powers are vested by the Legislature presumably in view of the highly complex nature of assessment proceedings involving a large number of assessees concerning multiple questions of claims, deductions and exemptions, which assessments have to be completed in a time frame. To protect the interests of the Revenue, therefore, such special provisions are made under section 147 of the Act. However, it must be appreciated that an assessment previously framed after scrutiny when reopened, results into considerable hardship to the assessee. The assessment gets reopened not only qua those grounds which are recorded in the reasons, but also with respect to the entire original assessment, of course at the hands of the Revenue. This obviously would lead to considerable hardship and uncertainty. It is precisely for this reason that even while recognizing such powers, in special requirements of the statute, certain safeguards are provided by the statute which are zealously guarded by the courts. Interpreting such statutory provisions courts upon courts have held that an assessment previously framed cannot be reopened on a mere change of opinion. It is stated that the power to reopening cannot be equated with review."

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)

(102 of 113) [CW-969/2022]

32. The fact that under the Finance Act, 2021 the provisions for reassessment were substituted is beyond doubt. The notes on clauses for making relevant amendments clearly at every stage provide that the Bill proposes to substitute the existing provisions.

For example it is stated that clause 35 seeks to amend Section 147 of the Act relating to income escaping assessment. Likewise under clause 36 Section 148 is proposed to be substituted so as to provide that before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 and subject to the provisions of Section 148A the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice along with a copy of order passed under clause (d) of Section 148. The Finance Act itself also refers to the substitution of Sections 147, 148 and 149 etc. along side insertion of Section 148A which as noted was being introduced for the first time. In the budged speech that the Finance Minister gave on the floor of the House it was explained that there was a proposal to reduce the time limit for reopening of the assessments. In the memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill, 2021, it was provided that the Bill proposes a completely new procedure for assessment of cases of reopening. It was pointed out that new Section 148A proposes issuance of notice and passing of the order by the Assessing Officer. It was further provided as under:-

"Another restriction has been provided that the notice under section 148 of the Act cannot be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit prescribed under the provisions of clause (b), as they stood immediately before the proposed amendment.

Since the assessment or reassessment or re- computation in search or requisition cases (where such (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (103 of 113) [CW-969/2022] search or requisition is initiated or made on or before 31st March 2021) are to be carried out as per the provision of section 153A, 153B, 153C and 153D of the Act, the aforesaid time limitation shall not apply to such cases."

33. In case of Government of India and Others Vs. Indian Tobacco Association, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 396, the Supreme Court considered the effect of substitution of a statutory provision by new one. It was observed as under:-

"15. The word "substitute" ordinarily would mean "to put (one) in place of another"; or "to replace". In Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, at page 1281, the word "substitute" has been defined to mean "to put in the place of another person or thing". or "to exchange". In Collins English Dictionary, the word "substitute" has been defined to mean "to serve or cause to serve in place of another person or thing"; "to replace (an atom or group in a molecule) with (another atom or group)"; or "a person or thing that serves in place of another, such as a player in a game who takes the place of an injured colleague".

25. In Zile Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. wherein the effect of an amendment in the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 by Act No. 15 of 1994 whereby the word "after" was substituted by the word "upto" fell for consideration; wherein Lahoti, C.J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench held the said amendment to have a retrospective effect being declaratory in nature as thereby obvious absurdity occurring in the first amendment and bring the same in conformity with what the legislature really intended to provide was removed, stating: (SCC p. 12 paras 23-25) "23. The text of Section 2 of the Second Amendment Act provides for the word ""upto"" being substituted for the word "after". What is the meaning and effect of the expression employed therein - "shall be substituted"?

24. The substitution of one text for the other pre-existing text is one of the known and well-recognised practices employed in legislative drafting. 'Substitution' has to be distinguished from 'supersession' or a mere repeal of an existing provision.

25. Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (104 of 113) [CW-969/2022] replacement by the new provision (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation, ibid, p.565). If any authority is needed in support of the proposition, it is to be found in West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. v. State of U.P., State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal, Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga and Co. and A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar v. S. Michael. In West U.P. Sugar Mills Association case a three-Judges Bench of this Court held that the State Government by substituting the new rule in place of the old one never intended to keep alive the old rule. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances centering around the issue the Court held that the substitution had the effect of just deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative. In Mangilal Pindwal case this Court upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute which had ceased to exist and held that the substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law during the period in which it was in force. In Koteswar case a three-Judge Bench of this Court emphasized the distinction between 'supersession' of a rule arid 'substitution' of a rule and held that the process of substitution consists of two steps : first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place."

34. In case of State of M.P. Vs. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. and Others, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 389, the Supreme Court held as under:-

"13. There is presumption against a repeal by implication; and the reason of this rule is based on the theory that the Legislature while enacting a law has a complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject matter, and therefore, when it does not provide a repealing provisions, the intention is clear not to repeal the existing legislation. (See: Municipal Council, Palai v. T.J. Joseph, Northern India Caterers (Private) Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker and Ratan Lal Adukia and Anr. v. Union of India.) When the new Act contains a repealing section mentioning the Acts which it expressly repeals, the presumption (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (105 of 113) [CW-969/2022] against implied repeal of other laws is further strengthened on the principle expressio unius (persone vel rei) est exclusio alterius. (The express intention of one person or thing is the exclusion of another), as illuminatingly stated in Garnett v. Bradley. The continuance of existing legislation, in the absence of an express provision of repeal by implication lies on the party asserting the same. The presumption is, however, rebutted and a repeal is inferred by necessary implication when the provisions of the later Act are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the earlier Act and that the two cannot stand together. But, if the two can be read together and some application can be made of the words in the earlier Act, a repeal will not be inferred. (See: A.G. v. Moore, Ratan Lal case and R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka)"

35. In case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mangilal Pindwal, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 60, it was observed that substitution of a provision results in repeal of the old provision and replacement by new provision. By repeal the provisions repealed ceased to exist with effect from the date of repeal but operation of the provision as it stood prior to repeal is not affected. It was held as under:-

"9. As pointed out by this Court, the process of a substitution of statutory provision consists of two Steps first; the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place. [see Koteshwar Vittal Kamath v, K. Rangappa & Co., SCR at p. 48] In other words, the substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision. As regards repeal of a statute the law is thus stated in Sutherland on Statutory Construction:

"The effect of the repeal of a statute where neither a saving clause nor a general saving statute exists to prescribed the governing rule for the effect of the repeal, is to destroy the effectiveness of the repealed act in futuro and to divest the right to proceed under the statute, which, except as to proceedings past and closed, is considered as if it had never existed." [Vol. I, para 2042, pp.522-523]

10. Similarly in Crawford's Interpretation of Laws it has been said : "Effect of Repeal, Generally. - In the (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (106 of 113) [CW-969/2022] first place, an outright repeal will destroy the effectiveness of the repealed act in futuro and operate to destroy inchoate rights dependent on it, as a general rule. In many cases, however, where statutes are repealed, they continue to be the law of the period during which they were in force with reference to numerous matters." [pp.640-641]

11. The observations of Lord Tenterden and Tindal, C.J. referred in the abovementioned passages in Craies on Statute Law also indicate that the principle that on repeal a statute is obliterated is subject to the exception that it exists in respect of transactions past and closed. To the same effect is the Jaw laid down by this Court. [See :Qudrat Ullah v. Municipal Board. Bareilly, SCR at p. 539]

12. This means that as a result of repeal of a statute the statute as repealed ceases to exist with effect from the date of such repeal but the repeal does not affect the previous operation of the law which has been repealed during the period it was operative prior to the date of such repeal.........."

36. It can thus be seen that original provisions upon their substitution stood repealed for all purposes and had no existence after introduction of the substituting provisions. We may refer to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which provides inter- alia that where the State Act or Central Act or regulation repeals any enactment then unless a different intention appears repeal shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect or affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder. Under the circumstances after substitution unless there is any intention discernible in the scheme of statute either pre-existing or newly introduced, the substituted provisions would not survive.

37. In this context we have perused the provisions of reassessment contained in the Finance Act, 2021. We have noticed earlier the major departure that the new scheme of reassessment (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (107 of 113) [CW-969/2022] has made under these provisions. The time limits for issuing notice for reassessment have been changed. The concept of income chargeable to tax escaping assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly or fully all material facts is no longer relevant. Elaborate provisions are made under Section 148A of the Act enabling the Assessing Officer to make enquiry with respect to material suggesting that income has escaped assessment, issuance of notice to the assessee calling upon why notice under Section 148 should not be issued and passing an order considering the material available on record including response of the assessee if made while deciding whether the case is fit for issuing notice under Section 148. There is absolutely no indication in all these provisions which would suggest that the legislature intended that the new scheme of reopening of assessments would be applicable only to the period post 01.04.2021. In absence of any such indication all notices which were issued after 01.04.2021 had to be in accordance with such provisions. To reiterate, we find no indication whatsoever in the scheme of statutory provisions suggesting that the past provisions would continue to apply even after the substitution for the assessment periods prior to substitution. In fact there are strong indications to the contrary. We may recall, that time limits for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act have been modified under substituted Section 149. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 reduces such period to three years instead of originally prevailing four years under normal circumstances. Clause (b) extends the upper limit of six years previously prevailing to ten years in cases where income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (108 of 113) [CW-969/2022] to 50 lacs or more. Sub-section (1) of Section 149 thus contracts as well as expands the time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 depending on the question whether the case falls under clause (a) or clause (b). In this context the first proviso to Section 149(1) provides 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. As per this proviso thus no notice under Section 148 would be issued for the past assessment years by resorting to the larger period of limitation prescribed in newly substituted clause (b) of Section 149(1). This would indicate that the notice that would be issued after 01.04.2021 would be in terms of the substituted Section 149(1) but without breaching the upper time limit provided in the original Section 149(1) which stood substituted. This aspect has also been highlighted in the memorandum explaining the proposed provisions in the Finance Bill. If according to the revenue for past period provisions of section 149 before amendment were applicable, this first proviso to section 149(1) was wholly unnecessary. Looked from both angles, namely, no indication of surviving the past provisions after the substitution and in fact an active indication to the contrary, inescapable conclusion that we must arrive at is that for any action of issuance of notice under Section 148 after 01.04.2021 the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021 would apply. Mere extension of time limits for issuing notice under section 148 would not change this position that obtains in law. (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)

(109 of 113) [CW-969/2022] Under no circumstances the extended period available in clause

(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 which we may recall now stands at 10 years instead of 6 years previously available with the revenue, can be pressed in service for reopening assessments for the past period. This flows from the plain meaning of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 149. In plain terms a notice which had become time barred prior to 01.04.2021 as per the then prevailing provisions, would not be revived by virtue of the application of Section 149(1)(b) effective from 01.04.2021. All the notices issued in the present cases are after 01.04.2021 and have been issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148A of the Act and are therefore invalid.

38. The second question framed by us arises in this context. Would the explanation contained in both the notifications of CBDT dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 save the situation for the revenue?

39. It is well settled that there is presumption of constitutionality of a statute (refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in case of The State of Jammu & Kashmir, Vs. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., reported in AIR 1974 SC 1). The said principle of presumption of constitutionality also applies to piece of delegated legislation. In case of St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional Director, National Council For Teachers Education and Another, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 321, it was observed that it is well settled in considering the vires of subordinate legislation one should start with the presumption that it is intra vires and if it is open to two constructions, one of which would make it valid and other invalid, the courts must adopt that construction which makes it valid. However it is equally well (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (110 of 113) [CW-969/2022] settled that the subordinate legislation does not enjoy same level of immunity as the law framed by the Parliament or the State Legislature. The law framed by the Parliament or the State Legislature can be challenged only on the grounds of being beyond the legislative competence or being contrary to the fundamental rights or any other constitutional provisions. Third ground of challenge which is now recognized in the judgment in case of Shayara Bano Vs Union of India reported in 2017 9 SCC 1 is of legislation being manifestly arbitrary. A subordinate legislation can be challenged on all these grounds as well as on the grounds that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made or that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or it is contrary to some of the statutes applicable on the subject matter. In case of J.K. Industries Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2007) 13 SCC 673, it was observed as under:-

"63. At the outset, we may state that on account of globalization and socio-economic problems (including income disparities in our economy) the power of Delegation has become a constituent element of legislative power as a whole. However, as held in the case of Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India reported in (1985) 1 SCC 641 at page 689, subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent Legislature. Subordinate legislation may be questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. In addition, it may also be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made. It may further be questioned on the ground that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or that it is contrary to some other statute applicable on the same subject matter. Therefore, it has to yield to plenary legislation. It can also be questioned on the ground that it is manifestly arbitrary and unjust. That, any inquiry into its vires must be confined to the grounds on which plenary legislation may be questioned, to the grounds that it is contrary to the statute under which it is made, to the grounds that it is contrary to other statutory provisions or on the ground that it is (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (111 of 113) [CW-969/2022] so patently arbitrary that it cannot be said to be inconformity with the statute. It can also be challenged on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution."

40. With this background we may revert to the Relaxation Act, 2020 and the two notifications issued by the CBDT. We may recall, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020 while extending the time limits for taking action and making compliances in the specified Acts upto 31.12.2020 the power was given to the Central Government to extend the time further by issuing a notification. This was the only power vested in the Central Government. As a piece of delegated legislation the notifications issued in exercise of such powers, had to be within the confines of such powers. In plain terms under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020 the Government of India was authorized to extend the time limits by issuing notifications in this regard. Issuing any explanation touching the provisions of the Income Tax Act was not part of this delegation at all. The CBDT while issuing the notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 when introduced an explanation which provided by way of clarification that for the purposes of issuance of notice under Section 148 as per the time limits specified in Section 149 or 151, the provisions as they stood as on 31.03.2021 before commencement of the Finance Act, 2021 shall apply, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not have travelled beyond the powers vested in the Government of India by the parent Act. Even otherwise it is extremely doubtful whether the explanation in the guise of clarification can change the very basis of the statutory provisions. If the plain meaning of the statutory provision and its (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM) (112 of 113) [CW-969/2022] interpretation is clear, by adopting a position different in an explanation and describing it to be clarificatory, the subordinate legislature cannot be permitted to amend the provisions of the parent Act. Accordingly, these explanations are unconstitutional and declared as invalid.

41. As noted, two Division Benches of Allahabad and Delhi High Courts have taken similar view. Two learned Single Judges of Calcutta and this High Court have followed this trend. Independently also we hold the same beliefs. As noted earlier we are conscious that Single Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra)7 has taken a different view. The view of the High Court was that the impugned notices were valid since by virtue of notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 the application of Section 148 which was originally existing before amendment was deferred. It was further observed as under:-

"Reading of the aforesaid notification would show that it was issued in exercise of power conferred under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and time for issuance of notice under Section 148, the end date was initially extended uptill on 30th day of April 2021 and subsequently again by notification dated 27th April, 2021 the time limit of 30th day of April 2021 was further extended up till 30th day of June, 2021. By effect of such notification, the individual identity of Section 148, which was prevailing prior to amendment and insertion of section 148A was insulated and saved uptill 30.06.2021."

With respect, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept this analysis of the situation. In our understanding by virtue of notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 01.04.2021 issued by CBDT substitution of reassessment provisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021 were not deferred nor could they have been deferred. 7 (2021) 438 ITR 622.

(Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)

(113 of 113) [CW-969/2022] The date of such amendments coming into effect remained 01.04.2021.

42. In the result we find that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law. The same are quashed and set aside. The learned Single Judge committed no error in quashing these notices. All the writ petitions are allowed. Appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Pending applications if any stand disposed of.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                                  (AKIL KURESHI),CJ


                                   KAMLESH KUMAR




                                                        (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 09:18:30 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Virendra Kumar Dhariwal Son Of Late Shri ... vs Dcit, Circle-2, Kota on 27 January, 2022

Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sameer Jain