| Court: | Allahabad High Court |
| Head Notes: | The petitioners have challenged the validity of the re-assessment notices issued to them, under Section 148 of the Act. Another challenge has been raised to the validity of the Explanation appended to clause (A)(a) of CBDT Notification No. 20 of 2021, dated 31.03.2021 and Explanation to clause (A)(b) of CBDT Notification No. 38 of 2021, dated 27.04.2021. Those notifications have been issued under the powers vested under Section 3(1) of the Act 38 of 2020 namely, the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Enabling Act’). 80. In view of the above, all the writ petitions must succeed and are allowed. It is declared that the Ordinance, the Enabling Act and Sections 2 to 88 of the Finance Act 2021, as enforced w.e.f. 01.04.2021, are not conflicted. Insofar as the Explanation appended to Clause A(a), A(b), and the impugned Notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 (respectively) are concerned, we declare that the said Explanations must be read, as applicable to reassessment proceedings as may have been in existence on 31.03.2021 i.e. before the substitution of Sections 147, 148, 148A, 149, 151 & 151A of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment notices in all the writ petitions are quashed. It is left open to the respective assessing authorities to initiate reassessment proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021, after making all compliances, as required by law. Note: It was held that the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court in W.P. (T) No. 149 of 2021 Palak Khatuja Vs Union of India & Ors. , decided on 23.08.2021 does not lay down the correct law |
| Law: | Income-Tax Act |
| Section(s): | Sections 147, 148, 148A, 149, 151 & 151A, Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 |
| Counsel(s): | Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned Senior Advocate |
| Dowload Pdf File | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| Uploaded By | ITAT BAR ASSOCIATION |
| Date of upload: | October 1, 2021 |
Yet again the controversy kept alive through inconsistent court decisions hinges on the ever evasive basic but incorrigible mindboggling distinction between whether the newly introduced provision (sec 148 A) is a ‘substative’ change or a mere ‘procedural change’ in the extant ‘ law’ !?!?For a synopsis of the extant law and change made >https://knmindia.com/sec-148-or-148a/https://nios.ac.in/…/338_Introduction_To_Law_Eng_L11.pdf
Holland in his book ‘Treatise on Jurisprudence’ has stated : “Law – defines the rights which it will aid, and specifies the way in which it will aid them. So far as it defines, thereby creating, ‘Substantive Law.’ So far as it provides a
method of aiding and protecting, it is ‘Adjective Law’, or Procedure.”
However Salmond, on the other hand, holds the view that separation “is sharply drawn in theory but in practical operation many procedural rules are “wholly
or substantially equivalent to rules of Substantive Law”.