Delhi High Court - Orders
Sachin Nagrath vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & ... on 22 February, 2022
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan, Navin Chawla
$~38 TO 40, 42 TO 47, 50, 51, 53 TO 57, 59 TO 62, 64 TO 66 & 69
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3206/2022 & CM APPL. 9342/2022
SACHIN NAGRATH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Ram Avtar Bansal & Mr.Shivang
Bansal, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr.Shailendra Singh, Jr.
Standing Counsel & Mr.Udit Sharma,
Adv.
$~39
+ W.P.(C) 3207/2022
SEEMA BILLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vishal Kalra, Mr.Ankit Saini &
Mr.S.S. Tomar, Advs.
versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE
49(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
$~40
+ W.P.(C) 3208/2022
AMAN VACHHER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vishal Kalra, Mr.Ankit Saini &
Mr.S.S. Tomar, Advs.
versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE
49(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:23.02.2022
23:10:13
$~42
+ W.P.(C) 3210/2022 & CM APPL. 9345/2022
SEPSET REAL ESTATE LIMIED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ram Shankar, Adv.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sunil Agarwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr.Tushar Gupta, Jr.
Standing Counsel & Mr.Samarth
Chaudhari, Adv.
Mr.Ghanshyam Mishra, Mr.Rajesh
Mishra & Ms.Priyanka Verma, Advs.
for R-2.
$~43
+ W.P.(C) 3211/2022 & CM APPL. 9346/2022
ARCHNA KHATRI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Ram Avtar Bansal & Mr.Shivang
Bansal, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
$~44
+ W.P.(C) 3212/2022 & CM APPL. 9347/2022
SHAGUN JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gaurav Jain, Mr.Gautam Jain,
Ms.Akshita Goyal & Mr.Shubham
Gupta, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22(2),
DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:23.02.2022
23:10:13
$~45
+ W.P.(C) 3213/2022
HARVINDER PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vishal Kalra, Mr.Ankit Saini &
Mr.S.S. Tomar, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 45(1), DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv.
$~46
+ W.P.(C) 3214/2022
CHARU BILLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vishal Kalra, Mr.Ankit Saini &
Mr.S.S. Tomar, Advs.
versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE
49(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr.Shailendra Singh, Jr.
Standing Counsel & Mr.Udit Sharma,
Adv.
$~47
+ W.P.(C) 3215/2022
HARVINDER PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vishal Kalra, Mr.Ankit Saini &
Mr.S.S. Tomar, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 45(1) DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:23.02.2022
23:10:13
$~50
+ W.P.(C) 3222/2022 & CM APPL. 9365/2022
CORPORATE WARRANTIES (INDIA) PVT LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kapil Goel & Mr.Sandeep Goel,
Advs.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4(2)
DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with
Mr.Vipul Agrawal, Mr.Parth Semwal,
Jr.SC
$~51
+ W.P.(C) 3223/2022 & CM APPL. 9368-69/2022
VIKRAM BAKSHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ashutosh Gupta, Mr.Gaurav
Rana, Mr.Harshit Garg, Mr.Ajitesh
Kumar & Mr.Yatharth Jain, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE4(2) DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with
Mr.Vipul Agrawal, Mr.Parth Semwal,
Jr.SC
$~53
+ W.P.(C) 3225/2022 & CM APPL. 9375/2022
GUNJAN KHANDELWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kapil Goel & Mr.Sandeep Goel,
Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 36 1 DELHI AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with
Mr.Vipul Agrawal, Mr.Parth Semwal,
Jr.SC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:23.02.2022
23:10:13
$~54
+ W.P.(C) 3227/2022
RAKESH VACHHER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vishal Kalra, Mr.Ankit Saini &
Mr.S.S. Tomar, Advs.
versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CRICLE
49(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr.Shailendra Singh, Jr.
Standing Counsel & Mr.Udit Sharma,
Adv.
$~55
+ W.P.(C) 3233/2022 & CM APPL. 9387-88/2022
ANIL SACHDEVA ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Mr.Sunil K Mukhi,
Mr.Tejaswar Nerwal & Mr.Anshul
Mittal, Advs.
versus
ITO CIRCLE 7(1) DELHI AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. SC with
Ms.Zehra Khan, Jr. SC and
Mr.Shubhendu Bhattacharyya, Adv.
$~56
+ W.P.(C) 3234/2022 & CM APPL. 9389-90/2022
REKHA RANI GARG ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Gautam Jain & Mr.Piyush Kumar
Kamal, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 34(1),
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Easha Kadiyan, Jr.
Standing Counsel.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:23.02.2022
23:10:13
$~57
+ W.P.(C) 3235/2022 & CM APPL. 9392-93/2022
SANJAY SACHDEVA ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Mr.Sunil K Mukhi,
Mr.Tejaswar Nerwal & Mr.Anshul
Mittal, Advs.
versus
ITO, CIRCLE-7(1) DELHI AND ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. SC with
Ms.Zehra Khan, Jr. SC and
Mr.Shubhendu Bhattacharyya, Adv.
$~59
+ W.P.(C) 3238/2022 & CM APPL. 9395-96/2022
KAPOOR SECURITIES PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Surbhi Chandra, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(1) DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
$~60
+ W.P.(C) 3239/2022 & CM APPL. 9399-400/2022
DUKE SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Abhishek Garg, Mr.Aayush
Kuchhal & Mr.Yash Gaiha, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7(1)
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Easha Kadiyan, Jr.
Standing Counsel.
$~61
+ W.P.(C) 3240/2022 & CM APPL. 9401-02/2022
CHHAVI GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Abhishek Garg, Mr.Aayush
Kuchhal & Mr.Yash Gaiha, Advs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:23.02.2022
23:10:13
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 60(1) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
$~62
+ W.P.(C) 3241/2022 & CM APPL. 9403-04/2022
KAPOOR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Surbhi Chandra, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO. 14(1) & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
$~64
+ W.P.(C) 3245/2022 & CM APPL. 9411-12/2022
BAHUJAN PRERNA TRUST ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Kanika Sinha & Mr.Avesh
Chaudhary, Advs.
versus
DCIT CIRCLE EXEMPT 1(1) DELHI, & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr.Shailendra Singh, Jr.
Standing Counsel & Mr.Udit Sharma,
Adv.
$~65
+ W.P.(C) 3247/2022
HARSH BILLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Vishal Kalra, Mr.Ankit Saini &
Mr.S.S. Tomar, Advs.
versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE
49(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:23.02.2022
23:10:13
$~66
+ W.P.(C) 3250/2022 & CM APPL. 9420/2022
NAVDEEP PRATAP SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kapil Goel & Mr.Sandeep Goel,
Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 72 1 DELHI AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sunil Agarwal, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr.Tushar Gupta, Jr.
Standing Counsel & Mr.Samarth
Chaudhari, Adv.
$~69
+ W.P.(C) 3254/2022 & CM APPL. 9439-40/2022
SANJAY SACHDEVA, ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Mr.Sunil K Mukhi,
Mr.Tejaswar Nerwal & Mr.Anshul
Mittal, Advs.
versus
ITO, CIRCLE-7(1) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. SC with
Ms.Zehra Khan, Jr. SC and
Mr.Shubhendu Bhattacharyya, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 22.02.2022 The petitions have been heard by way of video conferencing.
1. Learned counsel for the parties admit that as the impugned notices in the present matters have been issued post 31st March, 2021 without following the procedure prescribed in the substituted Sections 147 to 151 w.e.f. 01st April, 2021, the present matters are covered by the judgment dated 15th December, 2021 passed by this Court in the case of Mon Mohan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:23.02.2022 23:10:13 Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., W.P.(C) No.6176/2021.
2. The conclusion reached by this Court in Mon Mohan Kohli (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"CONCLUSION
97. This Court is of the view that as the Legislature has introduced the new provisions, Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by way of the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1st April, 2021 and as the said Section 147 is not even mentioned in the impugned Explanations, the reassessment notices relating to any Assessment Year issued under Section 148 after 31st March, 2021 had to comply with the substituted Sections.
98. It is clarified that the power of reassessment that existed prior to 31st March, 2021 continued to exist till the extended period i.e. till 30th June, 2021; however, the Finance Act, 2021 has merely changed the procedure to be followed prior to issuance of notice with effect from 1st April, 2021.
99. This Court is of the opinion that Section 3(1) of Relaxation Act empowers the Government/Executive to extend only the time limits and it does not delegate the power to legislate on provisions to be followed for initiation of reassessment proceedings. In fact, the Relaxation Act does not give power to Government to extend the erstwhile Sections 147 to 151 beyond 31st March, 2021 and/or defer the operation of substituted provisions enacted by the Finance Act, 2021. Consequently, the impugned Explanations in the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 are not conditional legislation and are beyond the power delegated to the Government as well as ultra vires the parent statute i.e. the Relaxation Act. Accordingly, this Court is respectfully not in agreement with the view of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (supra), but with the views of the Allahabad High Court and Rajasthan High Court in Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra) and Bpip Infra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:23.02.2022 23:10:13 Private Limited (supra) respectively.
100. The submission of the Revenue that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act saves notices issued under Section 148 post 31st March, 2021 is untenable in law, as in the present case, the repeal is followed by a fresh legislation on the same subject and the new Act manifests an intention to destroy the old procedure. Consequently, if the Legislature has permitted reassessment to be made in a particular manner, it can only be in this manner, or not at all.
101. The argument of the respondents that the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021 is not applicable to past Assessment Years, as it is substantial in nature is contradicted by Respondents' own Circular 549 of 1989 and its own submission that from 1st July, 2021, the substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021 will be applicable.
102. Revenue cannot rely on Covid-19 for contending that the new provisions Sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not operate during the period 1st April, 2021 to 30th June, 2021 as Parliament was fully aware of Covid-19 Pandemic when it passed the Finance Act, 2021. Also, the arguments of the respondents qua non-obstante clause in Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 'legal fiction' and 'stop the clock provision' are contrary to facts and untenable in law.
103. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the Executive/Respondents/Revenue cannot use the administrative power to issue Notifications under Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020 to undermine the expression of Parliamentary supremacy in the form of an Act of Parliament, namely, the Finance Act, 2021. This Court is also of the opinion that the Executive/Respondents/Revenue cannot frustrate the purpose of substituted statutory provisions, like Sections 147 to 151 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in the present instance, by emptying it of content or impeding or postponing their effectual operation."Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:23.02.2022 23:10:13
3. Keeping in view the aforesaid, Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 are declared to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020 and are therefore bad in law and null and void.
4. Consequently, the impugned reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are quashed and the present writ petitions are allowed. If the law permits the respondents/revenue to take further steps in the matter, they shall be at liberty to do so. Needless to state that if and when such steps are taken and if the petitioners have a grievance, they shall be at liberty to take their remedies in accordance with law.
MANMOHAN, J NAVIN CHAWLA, J FEBRUARY 22, 2022/rv Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KRISHNA BHOJ Signing Date:23.02.2022 23:10:13