Home › Income-Tax Act › Tata Communications Transformation Services v. ACIT (2022)443 ITR 49/ 212 DTR 241/ 325 CTR 49 ( Bom) (HC)/Rajebahadur Madhusudan Trimbak v ITO (2022)443 ITR 49/ 212 DTR 241/ 325 CTR 49 (Bom)(HC)

Tata Communications Transformation Services v. ACIT (2022)443 ITR 49/ 212 DTR 241/ 325 CTR 49 ( Bom) (HC)/Rajebahadur Madhusudan Trimbak v ITO (2022)443 ITR 49/ 212 DTR 241/ 325 CTR 49 (Bom)(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]

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court agreeing with the views taken by the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court and Madras High Court further held that there is no savings clause for applicability of erstwhile Sections 147 to 151 of the Act, and the explanations under the impugned notifications does not cover section 147 of the Act, therefore the procedure under section 148A of the Act should be followed, and the Relaxation Act does not operate for AY.  2015-16 and subsequent years. Notice  issued under section 148 of the Act was quashed . (   (WP NO.1334 OF 2021 (Bom)(HC) dated February 24, 2022)

Editorial: Followed High Court of Allahabad (Division Bench) in Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. UOI (2021) 131 taxmann.com 22 (Allahabad), High Court of Delhi (Division Bench) in Mon Mohan Kohli v. ACIT & Anr. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi), High Court of Rajasthan (Single Judge) in Bpip Infra (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 133 taxmann.com 48 (Rajasthan), and High Court of Calcutta in Bagaria Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. V. UOI and Ors. W.P.O. No.244 of 2021 dated Janu 17,2022 and Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Taneja v. ITO D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.969 of 2022 pronounced on January 27, 2022 and High Court of Madras (Division Bench) in Vellore Institute of Technology V/s. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Anr. Writ Petition No.15019 of 2021 dated February 04, 2022.

 

Dissented from the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja v. UOI 2021 (438) ITR 622 (Chatt) (HC)

Editorial: Followed High Court of Allahabad (Division Bench) in Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. UOI (2021) 131 taxmann.com 22 (Allahabad), High Court of Delhi (Division Bench) in Mon Mohan Kohli v. ACIT & Anr. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi), High Court of Rajasthan (Single Judge) in Bpip Infra (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 133 taxmann.com 48 (Rajasthan), and High Court of Calcutta in Bagaria Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. V. UOI and Ors. W.P.O. No.244 of 2021 dated Janu 17,2022 and Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Taneja v. ITO D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.969 of 2022 pronounced on January 27, 2022 and High Court of Madras (Division Bench) in Vellore Institute of Technology V/s. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Anr. Writ Petition No.15019 of 2021 dated February 04, 2022.

 

Dissented from the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja v. UOI 2021 (438) ITR 622 (Chatt) (HC)