JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR…
Impugned reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are quashed and set aside.
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. 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
----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
(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 ----Petitioner
9.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15177/2021
Giriraj Singh Hada S/o Late Mahraj Tejraj Singh Ji
Versus
The Income Tax Officer 10.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 181/2022 Inderjit Sahni W/o Surendra Pal Singh Sahni
----Respondent
----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
(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 ----Petitioner
13.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 508/2022
Preeti Bakshi Wife Of Dr. Sandeep Bakshi
Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 14.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 527/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
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 17.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 590/2022 Mohammed Salim Maniyar S/o Shri Abdul Maniyar Versus Income Tax Officer 18.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 595/2022 Mohammed Salim Maniyar S/o Shri Abdul Maniyar
----Respondent
----Petitioner
----Respondent
----Petitioner
Versus
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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 ----Petitioner
47.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9837/2021
Unique Madhuban Homes Private Limited
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 50.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9891/2021
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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 88.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13560/2021 Sanjay Kumar Jain, Son Of Shri Kewal Chand Jain
----Respondent ----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 92.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13573/2021
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
Kewal Chand Jain Son Of Shri Juhar Mal Jain
----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
(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 95.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13704/2021 Karan Bhatia Son Of Shri Suraj Bhatia
----Respondent ----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 97.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13726/2021 Gurumukh Das Versus Income Tax Officer 98.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13853/2021 Shiv Kumar Soni
----Respondent ----Petitioner ----Respondent
----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
(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
(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
(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 ----Petitioner
115.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14361/2021 Anita Bohra Daughter Of Shri Sh. Hira Lal Bohra
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
(19 of 113)
[CW-969/2022]
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent 121.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14501/2021 ----Petitioner Versus
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
(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
(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 135.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14694/2021
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent ----Petitioner
Sh. Krishan Kumar Parwal
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 138.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14699/2021 Tarun Kumar Nahta
----Respondent
----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
(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 142.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14703/2021 Yogesh Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Roop Singh Shekhawat Versus Income Tax Officer
----Respondent ----Petitioner ----Respondent
143.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14741/2021
Smt. Basanti Devi Parwal Income Tax Officer
Versus
----Petitioner
----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
(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
(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
(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
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
(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
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
(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
(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 183.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15132/2021
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent ----Petitioner
Puran Mal Prahlad Rai
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
(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
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
(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
(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 203.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15201/2021 Samkit Hirawat
----Respondent ----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
(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
Lala Ram Meena S/o Kana Ram Meena
----Petitioner
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
(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
(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
(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 233.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 56/2022
Sandeep Chhabra Son Of Late Shri Moti Lal Jain
----Respondent
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
(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
Vk Bordia And Sons Huf
----Respondent ----Petitioner
237.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 60/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
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
(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
(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 ----Petitioner
251.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 76/2022
Assam Edible Oils Limited
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
(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
(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
(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 271.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 97/2022
Unique Dream Builders Private Limited
----Respondent
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 ----Petitioner Versus
275.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 101/2022
Income Tax Officer
Nitin Gilara S/o Shri Gordhan Das Gilara
----Respondent
(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
(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
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
(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 ----Petitioner
291.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 117/2022
Income Tax Officer
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
(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 298.D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 124/2022 Income Tax Officer
----Respondent ----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
(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
(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
(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
(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
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
(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
(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 339.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 327/2022
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
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 341.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 338/2022
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
(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
(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 352.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 455/2022 M/s Soni Industries
----Respondent ----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
(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 ----Petitioner
359.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 510/2022 Vcb Trading Llp
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
(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 366.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 560/2022
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
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
(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
(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
(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
Union Of India
----Respondent ----Petitioner
386.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 658/2022
Sara Lifestyles And Leisures Private Limited
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
(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 ----Petitioner
393.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 684/2022 Shyam Sunder Jhalani
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent ----Petitioner
394.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 691/2022
Sunil Kumar Modi Huf
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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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 440.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1056/2022 Smt. Malini Singh D/o Shri Abnash Chander Chopra
----Respondent ----Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent ----Petitioner
441.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1058/2022 Ratika W/o Mahesh Kumar Gupta
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
(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
(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
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent 458. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9656/2021 Ladu Ram Banger
----Petitioner
(69 of 113)
[CW-969/2022]
Versus
Income Tax Officer
----Respondent
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
----Petitioner Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent 465. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14143/2021 Nitin Nachani
(70 of 113)
[CW-969/2022]
----Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
----Respondent
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
(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
(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):
(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.
(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:
(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)
(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:
(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.
“ 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);
(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."
(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
(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 subsection (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 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 showcause 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 subsection 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.”
(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.
(82 of 113)
[CW-969/2022]
Comparison between old and new provisions for reassessment
(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.
1(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)
(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
(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.
(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 subsection (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
(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]”
“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.”
(88 of 113)
[CW-969/2022]
(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
(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 panIndia 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 .
3 2021(10) TMI 517
2 2021( 12) TMI 207
(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.
(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?
(91 of 113)
[CW-969/2022]
in case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra)4 has ruled in favour of the assessee making following observations:-
4 2021(10) TMI 517
(92 of 113)
[CW-969/2022]
(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.
(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:-
(95 of 113)
[CW-969/2022]
(96 of 113)
[CW-969/2022]
(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
(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
(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.
(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
(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
(100 of 113)
[CW-969/2022]
(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.”
(102 of 113)
[CW-969/2022]
“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 recomputation in search or requisition cases (where such
(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.”
"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"?
(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."
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
(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)”
“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]
(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]
(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
(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.
(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.
(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
(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.”
(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.
“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.
(113 of 113)
[CW-969/2022]
The date of such amendments coming into effect remained 01.04.2021.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
(AKIL KURESHI),CJ
KAMLESH KUMAR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether substituted reassessment provisions of Finance Act, 2021 apply to notices issued after 01.04.2021 for prior assessment years?
Whether CBDT notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 clarifying applicability of old provisions are valid?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
BPIP Infra Private Limited Vs. Income Tax OfficerReferred¶3
BPIP Infra Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13297/2021), reported in 2021 (12) TMI 207
Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of IndiaFollowed¶26
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
GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax OfficerReferred¶17
GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)
Mon Mohan Kohli Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxFollowed¶27
Mon Mohan Kohli Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 2021 (12) TMI 664
Bagaria Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of IndiaFollowed¶29
Bagaria Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (WPO No.244/2021)
Palak Khatuja Vs. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶30
Palak Khatuja and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2021) 438 ITR 622
State of W.B. Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd.Relied on¶31
State of W.B. Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors., (2004) 10 SCC 201 · Who else cites this
Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar And CompanyRelied on¶31
Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar And Company And Ors., (2018) 9 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income TaxRelied on¶31
Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (1975) 101 ITR 234
K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax OfficerRelied on¶31
K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in (1981) 131 ITR 597
Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxReferred¶31
Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [2013] 350 ITR 266(Guj)
Government of India and Others Vs. Indian Tobacco AssociationRelied on¶33
Government of India and Others Vs. Indian Tobacco Association, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 396 · Who else cites this
State of M.P. Vs. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd.Relied on¶34
State of M.P. Vs. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. and Others, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 389 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mangilal PindwalRelied on¶35
State of Rajasthan Vs. Mangilal Pindwal, reported in (1996) 5 SCC 60 · Who else cites this
The State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Triloki Nath KhosaReferred¶39
The State of Jammu & Kashmir, Vs. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., reported in AIR 1974 SC 1 · Who else cites this
St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional Director, NCTEReferred¶39
St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional Director, National Council For Teachers Education and Another, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 321
Shayara Bano Vs Union of IndiaReferred¶39
Shayara Bano Vs Union of India reported in 2017 9 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶39
J.K. Industries Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2007) 13 SCC 673 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Sudesh Taneja
Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jaipur
Central Board Of Direct Taxes
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Union Of India
Akil Kureshi
Sameer Jain
Kamlesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
