Sudesh Taneja v. ITO (Raj)(HC) Gupta (HUF ) v.ITO (2022) 285 Taxman 484( Raj)(HC/Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Company (P.) Ltd v.ACIT (2022) 285 Taxman 500 ( Raj)(HC )

S. 148: Reassessment – Notice-Constitutional validity – The delegation authorized being only for the purpose of enlarging limitation under a valid law, such delegation could not be exercised to resurrect the provision of law that stood omitted from the statute book by virtue of its substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021 – Reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the Act are quashed-It is left open to the assessing authority to initiate – re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 after making due compliance as required under the law. [S. 147, 148A, 149, 151, 151A, 153, 292 Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), S. 3(1) of the Act 38 of 2020, Art. 226]

It was held that as a piece of delegated legislation the notifications issued in exercise of such powers, had to be within the confines of such powers. In plain terms under Section 3(1) of the TOLA the Government of India was authorized to extend the time limits by issuing notifications in this regard. Issuing any explanation touching the provisions of the Income Tax Act was not part of this delegation at all. The CBDT while issuing the notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 when introduced an explanation which provided by way of clarification that for the purposes of issuance of notice under Section 148 as per the time limits specified in Section 149 or 151, the provisions as they stood as on 31.03.2021 before commencement of the Finance Act, 2021 shall apply, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not have travelled beyond the powers vested in the Government of India by the parent Act. The subordinate legislature cannot be permitted to amend the provisions of the parent Act. Impugned Notices are quashed. The Petitions are allowed.

Followed, Ashok Kumar Agarwal & Ors. v. UOI (All.)(HC), Bpip Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. ACIT and Ors (Raj (HC); and Mon Mohan Kohli v. ACIT (Delhi) (HC) and Bagaria Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (WPO No.244/2021) decided on January 17, 2022 ( D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969 of 2022 dated January 27, 2022 )