Reassessment notices issued under the former statutory regime after its substitution were held invalid. Following the coordinate bench, the court quashed the notices, allowed all writ petitions and dismissed the Income Tax Authorities’ special appeals.
Impugned reassessment notices quashed and set aside; all writ petitions allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 156/2022
Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ito, Wd 1(3), Income Tax Department, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur (Raj.)-302005.
----Appellant
Versus
Day Night Trading Private Limited, 30, Kishan Nagar, Janpath, Shyam Nagar Ext., Jaipur-302019, Rajasthan Through Its Director Nawdip Khemka, S/o Late Gulab Chand Khemka, Aged About 55 Years, R/o-30, Janpath, Kishan Nagar, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur-302019, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
connected with
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 157/2022
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Gyandeep Khemka Huf
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Gokul Das Maheshwari Son Of Late Shri Roop Chand Maheshwari
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 159/2022
Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)
----Appellant
Versus
Ashish Agarwal S/o Shri Chiranjeev Lal Agarwal
----Respondent
(2 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus Motisons Jewellers Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 161/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant Versus
Girdhar Jewellers Private Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 163/2022
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Suman Khemka W/o Gyandeep Khemka
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 164/2022
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Nawdeep Kumar Khemka Huf
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 165/2022
Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Nav Ratan Agrawal S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Agrawal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 168/2022
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4)
----Appellant
Versus
(3 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
Reena Goyal D/o Ram Ratan Goyal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 169/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Lawat Jewellers Private Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 170/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant Versus
Rambhajos
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 171/2022
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Swati Khemka W/o Nawdip Khemka
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 172/2022
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Nischal Sidana Huf
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 173/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Akhil Maheshwari S/o Shri Ballabh Das Maheshwari
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 174/2022
Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur
(4 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
----Appellant
Versus
Kiran Infra Engineers Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 175/2022
Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
Hema Agarwal D/o Sh. Bal Kishan Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 176/2022
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Appellant Versus
Smriti Khemka, D/o Nawdip Khemka
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 177/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Deepika Naredi Daughter Of Shri Radhey Shyam Mitta
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 178/2022
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Dhandia Exports
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 179/2022
Office Of The Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Dhandia Gems Corporation
----Respondent
(5 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 180/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Nehal Jain D/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 181/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant Versus
Priyanka Agarwal D/o Shri Om Prakash Kedia
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 182/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus Ravindra Agarwal Son Of Sobhag Mal Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 183/2022
Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)
----Appellant
Versus Ravi Agarwal S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 184/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar Goyal S/o Shri Gauri Shankar Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 185/2022
Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
(6 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
Kaushalya Sharma Wife Of Shri Roshan Lal Sharma ----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 186/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Manoj Kumar Agarwal Son Of Sobhag Mal Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 187/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Lalit Kumar Naredi Son Of Late Shri Durga Prasad Naredi
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 188/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Deepika Naredi Daughter Of Shri Radhey Shyam Mitta
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 189/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Hajari Lal Sharma Huf
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 190/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Rambhajos
----Respondent
(7 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 191/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Chetan Agrawal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 192/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar Kedia S/o Prahlad Rai Kedia
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 193/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Alok Kumar Jain S/o Shri S.n. Jain
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 194/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Deep Shikha Developers Private Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 195/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar Goyal S/o Shri Gauri Shankar Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 196/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
(8 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
Vikram Agarwal S/o Shri Sitaram Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 197/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus Mahesh Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Vaidh G.n. Sharma
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 198/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Nisha Agarwal D/o Shri Rajendra Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 199/2022
Assistnat Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Lawat Jewellers Private Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 200/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Lawat Jewellers Private Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 204/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Mohammad Sadik S/o Sh. Mohammed Siddik
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 205/2022
Income Tax Officer
(9 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
----Appellant
Versus
Praveen Kumar Bansal C/o Dinesh Bansal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 206/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Murari Lal Singhal S/o Sh. Dwarka Prasad Singhal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 207/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1 Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
Meghraj Singh Shekhawat S/o Late Sh. Kalyan Singh
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 208/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Sunil Sankhla, S/o Sh. Shrawan Sankhla
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 209/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Hem Chand Jain, S/o Sh. Inder Chand Jain
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 210/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Om Prakash Saini S/o Shri Puran Chand Chandel
----Respondent
(10 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 211/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Mukut Behari Agarwal S/o Hanuman Das Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 212/2022
Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1)
Versus
Mukesh Misra , S/o Shri Bhagwan Misra
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 213/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1
----Appellant
Versus
Amrit Lal Maheshwari S/o Late Shri Radha Krishan Maheshwari
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 214/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
M/s Vedansh Creation
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 215/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Alliance Land Developers Private Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 216/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
(11 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
Kiran Infra Ispat Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 217/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Mustafa S/o Sh. Mohammad Miya
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 218/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Hem Chand Jain, S/o Sh. Inder Chand Jain
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 219/2022
Office Of Tghe Income Tax Officer Ito
----Appellant
Versus
Shri Ganesham Build Developers Private Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 220/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Saroj Devi Nayak
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 221/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Okay Plus International Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 222/2022
Income Tax Officer
(12 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
----Appellant
Versus
Vijendra Singh S/o Sh. Mohan Lala
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 225/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Shree Fats And Proteins Pvt. Ltd.
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 226/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Prem Devi Rao D/o Shri Bhairon Singh
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 227/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Farasat Kamal Son Of Shri Kaiser Kamal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 228/2022
Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Kapil Goyal S/o Sh. Daya Krishna Goyal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 229/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Bairathi Shoe Company Private Limited
----Respondent
(13 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 230/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Anil Sankhla, S/o Sh. Sharwan Sankhla
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 231/2022
Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk
----Appellant Versus
Kamla Soni W/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Soni
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 232/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Mukut Behari Agarwal S/o Sh. Hanuman Das Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 233/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Satish Chand Agarwal S/o Sh. Jagdish Narayan
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 234/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Ghisa Lal Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 235/2022
Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk
----Appellant
Versus
(14 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
Rajeev Bansal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 236/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Murari Lal Singhal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 237/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Rajeev Bansal S/o Madan Lal Bansal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 238/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Vijay Kumar Jain
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 240/2022
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur Range-2
----Appellant
Versus
Manoj Agarwal S/o Shri Nav Ratan Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 241/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Shoukat Kamal Wife Of Shri Kaiser Kamal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 242/2022
Income Tax Officer
(15 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
----Appellant
Versus
N.k. Agarwal And Sons (Huf)
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 244/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Kailash Chand Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 246/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
M/s Mangala Product Private Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 247/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Bal Kishan Bansal S/o Sh. Prabhu Lal Bansal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 248/2022
Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Nitu Agarwal W/o Shri Manoj Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 249/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Shree Mangal Sodium India Private Limited
----Respondent
(16 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 250/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Bajranglal Somani Alias Dinesh Kumar Somani Son Of Shri Bajrang Lal Somani
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 251/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6
----Appellant
Versus
Alok Kumar Jain S/o Shri S.n. Jain
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 252/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Company Private Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 254/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Rajeev Bansal S/o Sh. Madan Lal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 255/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Rajeev Bansal S/o Madan Lal Bansal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 256/2022
Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2) Jaipur
(17 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
----Appellant
Versus
Smt. Manju Kaushik W/o. Dr. V.k. Kaushik
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 257/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Manisha Bhandari W/o Shri Surendra Kumar Bhandari
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 258/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus Manisha Bhandari W/o Shri Surendra Kumar Bhandari
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 259/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Shakil S/o Mohammed Hanif
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 260/2022
Union Of India
----Appellant
Versus
Sultana Begum W/o Late Shri Sheikh Abdul Rasheed
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 261/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Vijay Kumar Jain
----Respondent
(18 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 262/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Vijay Kumar Jain
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 263/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant Versus
Phi Equity Trade
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 264/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Phi Equity Trade
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 265/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus Rakesh Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Vijay Kumar Jain
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 267/2022
Income Tax Offcier
----Appellant
Versus
Padmasana Kothari D/o Sh. Milap Kothari
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 268/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
(19 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
Kaushalya Devi W/o Late Prabhu Lal Bansal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 269/2022
Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
B Ralhan Stock Brokers Private Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 270/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Agarwal Huf
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 271/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Smt. Poonam Kanwar W/o Shri Daulat Singh
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 272/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Nawal Kishore Khandelia And Sons Huf
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 273/2022
Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
B Ralhan Stock Brokers Private Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 274/2022
(20 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Manoj Agarwal S/o Shri Nav Ratan Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 275/2022
Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
B Ralhan Stock Brokers Private Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 276/2022
Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Girnar Software Private Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 277/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Jpj Financial Services
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 279/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus Ghan Shyam Dass Gidwani S/o Mahadev Das Gidwani
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 280/2022
Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus Girnar Software Private Limited
(21 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 281/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Sushil Gupta S/o Shri Mata Deen Gupta
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 282/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar Murlidhar Huf
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 283/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Motors Rajasthan Private Limited
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 284/2022
Income Tax Officer
Versus
Kaushalya Devi W/o Late Prabhu Lal Bansal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 285/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Rishab Jain Son Of Shri Suresh Agarwal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 286/2022
Income Tax Officer
(22 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
----Appellant
Versus
Azaz Kureshi S/o Sh. Gafoor Qureshi
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 287/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Bal Kishan Bansal S/o Sh. Prabhu Lal Bansal
----Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 289/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Appellant
Versus
Fatima Kamal Islam Rubabul Islam Daughter Of Shri Rubabul Islam Kaiser Kamal
----Respondent (Writ Petitions)
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 713/2022
Goyal Salt Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 747/2022
Late Shri Naresh Kumar Choudhary S/o Sh. Madan Singh Choudhary
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1052/2022
Jitendra Kumar Singhi S/o Sh. Pukhraj Singhi
----Petitioner
Versus
(23 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1059/2022
Jitendra Kumar Singhi S/o Sh. Pukhraj Singhi
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1061/2022
M/s Ambar Nagar Aavasiya Yojna
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1062/2022
Jitendra Kumar Singhi S/o Sh. Pukhraj Singhi
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1064/2022
Jitendra Kumar Singhi S/o Sh. Pukhraj Singhi
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1065/2022
M/s Ambar Nagar Aavasiya Yojna
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1066/2022
(24 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
M/s Ambar Nagar Aavasiya Yojna
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1070/2022
Dimple Jain W/o Sh. Jitendra Kumar Singhi
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1072/2022
M/s Ambar Nagar Aavasiya Yojna (Aop)
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1268/2022
Khalsa Real Estates
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1672/2022
Bugali Devi W/o Sh. Sita Ram Balai
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1673/2022
Mahalaxmi Brokerage India Private Limited
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
(25 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1257/2022
Harphul Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Saval Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1265/2022
Pooran Chand Yadav S/o Sh. Matadin
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1267/2022
Bhoop Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Jhabar Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1262/2022
Dharmender Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Offcer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1266/2022
Nityannad Yadav S/o Sh. Raja Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1039/2022
Cold Steel Corporation
(26 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1045/2022
Cold Steel Corporation
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1046/2022
Cold Steel Corporation
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1047/2022
Cold Steel Corporation
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1261/2022
Firoj Son Of Mohammed Amin
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1525/2022
Tarun Jajoo S/o Mahesh Kumar Jajoo
----Petitioner
Versus
The Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
(27 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1532/2022
Rajmala Finlease (P) Ltd.
----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Nikhil Simlote & Mr. Anuroop Singhi, through VC (for appellants in Special Appeals and for the respondents in the writ petitons)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan, Mr. Jaideep Malik Mr. Vedant Agarwal, Mr. Prateek Kedawat, Mr. Deepak Pareek and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, through VC (in writ petitions)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
01/02/2022
Defects as pointed out by the Registry stand waived.
With the consent of the parties, all these matters are heard and decided together by a common order.
This bunch of writ petitions as well as D.B. Special Appeals (Writs) arising out of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge involves the same issue.
In the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the respective notices issued by the Assessing Officers under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for various assessment years.
All these notices were issued after 01.04.2021 and pertain to the relevant period which is prior to the said date.
(28 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners and some of the writ petitons were submitted before the Division Bench in pursuance of the notification issued by this Court. The issue involved in these special appeals as well as the writ petitions is no more res integra as the same has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding a batch of petitions with the lead case of "Sudesh Tanesh Vs. Income Tax Officer in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.969/2022". At the time of hearing of the identical petitions, this Court forumulated the following two questions of law for consideration as under:
After hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the Department of Income Tax as well as the counsel appearing for the asseessee, the Co-ordinate Bench disposed of the identical D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.969/2022 titled as "Sudesh Tanesh Vs. Income Tax Officer" along-with the connected matters vide judgment dated 27.01.2022 by observing that:-
"36. It can thus be seen that original provisions upon their substitution stood repealed for all
(29 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
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 preexisting or newly introduced, the substituted provisions would not survive.
(30 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
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 to 50 lacs or more. Subsection (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. 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
(31 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
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.
(32 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
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 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.”
(33 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
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 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) 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.”
(34 of 34)
[SAW-156/2022]
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. The date of such amendments coming into effect remained 01.04.2021.
We have heard counsel for the parties and we are in full agreement with the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja (Supra).
In the result, we find that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law and the same are quashed and set aside and at the same time, we find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in quashing these notices. Hence, all the writ petitions stands allowed and all the special appeals filed by the Income Tax Authorities are dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in other connected petitions/appeals.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
HEENA GANDHI /
2 issues framed by the court
Could reassessment notices issued after substitution of the reassessment provisions invoke the former provisions for earlier assessment years?
Were the CBDT explanations preserving the former reassessment provisions valid?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sudesh Tanesh Vs. Income Tax OfficerFollowed¶943
Sudesh Tanesh Vs. Income Tax Officer in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.969/2022
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ito, Wd 1(3), Income Tax Department
Day Night Trading Private Limited
Gokul Das Maheshwari
Ashish Agarwal
Motisons Jewellers Limited
Girdhar Jewellers Private Limited
PANKAJ BHANDARI
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
