Disposed

Smt. Kiran Bajaj v. Assistant Commissioner of

Karnataka HC20 Apr 2022WP/2326/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court held that the explanation below Clause (A) in CBDT notifications No.20/2021 and No.38/2021 is ultra vires the 1961 Act and 2020 Act. Consequently, the impugned Section 148 notice dated 29/06/2021 was quashed, though fresh proceedings remain open post-Finance Act 2021.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 29/06/2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed. The explanation in CBDT notifications is declared ultra vires.

Smt. Kiran Bajaj Vs Assistant Commissioner of — Income Tax | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

W.P.No.2326/2022 (T-IT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. KIRAN BAJAJ AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, C/O AVON PLASTIC INDSUTRIES PVT. LTD. NO 53, BOMMASANDRA JIGANI LINK ROAD, ANEKAL TQ, BENGALURU 562106, KARNATAKA. … PETITIONER

¶11

(By Sri Ashok A. Kulakarni, Adv.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1) BMTC BUILIDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560095, KARNATAKA.

¶14

ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE NEW DELHI 110001.

¶15

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DEPT. OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. … RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

(By Sri K.V.Aravind a/w Sri Dilip.M., Adv.’s)

¶18

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash by an order, writ or direction in the nature of certiorari the notice u/s 148 bearing DIN and notice number ITBA/AST/S/148/202122/1033847072(1), dated 29/06/2021 in Annexure-A issued by the respondent no.1 as unlawful and illegal along with the attendant actions, etc.

¶19

This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, Alok Aradhe J. , made the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner in this writ petition has sought quashment of explanation below Clause (A) in the notification bearing No.20/2021/F.NO.370142/35/2020-TPL dated 31.03.2021 and notification No.38/2021/ F.No.370142/35/2020-TPL dated 27.04.2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, as ultra vires the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1961 Act’, for short) and the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2020 Act’, for short). The

¶22

¶23

petitioner has also prayed for relief that extension of time limit by the 2020 Act does not apply to notices issued under erstwhile Section 148 of the 1961 Act, after 01.04.2021. The petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 29.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the 1961 Act for the Assessment year 2014-15.

¶24

We have heard the learned counsel at length. For the reasons assigned by us in the judgment dated 19.04.2022 passed in W.P.No.22348/2021 and for the reasons assigned by the Division Bench of High Court of Allahabad in ASHOK KUAR AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA’ , Rajasthan High Court in ‘BPIP INFRA (P.) LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR , Delhi High Court decision in MON MOHAN KOHLI VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. and decision of Bombay High Court in TATA COMMUNICATIONS TRANSFORMATION SERVICES LIMITED, VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1) AND OTHERS, W.P.NO.1334/2021, the explanation below Clause (A) in the notification bearing No.20/2021370142/35/2020-tl dated 31.03.2021 and notification No.38/2021f. No.370142/35/2020-TPL dated

¶25

¶26

27.04.2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes is hereby declared as ultra vires the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. The impugned notice dated 29.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act are quashed.

¶27

However, it will be open to the Assessing Officer concerned to initiate fresh re-assessment proceeding in accordance with relevant provisions of the 1961 Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021 after strictly complying with the provisions of the Act.

¶28

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Smt. Kiran Bajaj v. Assistant Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kiran Bajaj v. Assistant Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinivasa Reddy Sreelekha Vs Income Tax Officer

Shivappa Venkataramu Vs Income Tax Officer

Rangaiah Naidu Govinda Naidu Vs Income Tax Officer

Calambur Sivaramamurti Krishnamurti Vs the Central Board of Direct Taxes

M/S. v.S.Products Vs Union of India

Fast Track Packers Private Limited Vs Union of India