Bombay High CourtAngad Prem Sawhney vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 17 (1) ... on 29 March, 2022Bench: K.R. Sriram, N. J. Jamadar1/71            1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n                   (1377) WRIT PETITION NO.1334 OF 2021\n  Tata Communications Transformation Services        )\n  Limited, having its office at Plot No.C21 & C36,   )\n  G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),      )\n  Mumbai - 400 098                                   ) ....Petitioner\n                V/s.\n  (1) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1)  )\n  (2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400 020 )\n  (2) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6,      )\n  Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400 020         )\n  (3) Union of India                             )\n  Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,    )\n  Government of India, North Block,              )\n  New Delhi - 100 001                            ) ....Respondents\n                                    WITH\n      WP/1300/2021       WITH WP(L.)/19303/2021 WITH WP(L.)/\n      19311/2021 WITH WP/2830/2021 WITH WP/3374/2021 WITH\n      WP/3289/2021 WITH WP/2467/2021 WITH WP/2468/2021\n      WITH WP/2470/2021\n                                    WITH\n      (940) WP/2037/2021, (941) WP/2242/2021, (942) WP/2326/\n      2021, (943) WP/2327/2021, (944) WP/2330/2021, (945) WP/\n      2333/2021, (946) WP/2531/2021, (947) WP/2578/2021, (948)\n      WP/2650/2021, (949) WP/2664/2021, (950) WP/2703/2021,\n      (951) WP/2742/2021, (952) WP/2749/2021, (953) WP/2930/\n      2021, (954) WP/2946/2021, (955) WP/3279/2021, (956) WP/\n      3281/2021, (957) WP/3295/2021, (958) WP/3316/2021, (959)\n      WP/3489/2021, (960) WP/3537/2021, (961) WP/3749/ 2021,\n      (962) WP/3762/2021, (963) WP/3934/2021, (964) WP/ 3936/\n      2021, (965) WP/3939/2021, (966) WP/3940/2021, (967) WP/\n      3943/2021 (968) WP/3965/2021, (969) WP/3172/2021, (970)\n      WP/3678/2021, (971) WP/3566/2021, (972) WP/3584/ 2021,\n      (973) WP/3567/2021, (974) WP/3565/2021, (975) WP/\n      3575/2021, (976) WP(L.)/25606/2021, (977) WP(L.)/30142/\n      2021, (978) WP(L.)/30201/2021, (979) WP(L.)/31306/2021,\n      (980) WP(L.)/31332/2021, (981) WP(L.)/31339/2021, (982) WP\n      (L.)/31350/2021, (984) WP(L.)/31364/2021, (985) WP(L.)/\n      31442/2021, (986) WP (L.)/31645/2021, (987) WP(L.)/31647/\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                    2/71            1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n        2021, (988) WP(L.)/31648/2021, (989) WP(L.)/31669/2021,\n        (990) WP(L.)/31677/2021, (991) WP (L.)/31769/2021, (992)\n        WP(L.)/31775/2021, (993) WP(L.)/31810/2021, (994) WP(L.)/\n        31826/2021, (995) WP(L.)/31841/ 2021, (996) WP/6/2022,\n        (997) WP/7/2022, (998) WP/12/2022, (999) WP/18/2022,\n        (1000) WP/20/2022, (1001) WP/21/2022 WITH WP/728/2022,\n        WITH WP(L.)/4111/2022 WITH WP/174/ 2022, WITH WP/250/\n        2022, WITH WP/14/2022, (1002) WP/22/ 2022, (1003) WP/24/\n        2022, (1004) WP/29/2022, (1005) WP/42/ 2022, (1006) WP(L.)/\n        43/2022, (1007) WP/ 44/2022, (1008) WP/48/2022, (1009) WP/\n        50/2022, (1010) WP/ 59/2022, (1011) WP/77/2022, (1012) WP/\n        108/2022, (1013) WP(L.)/ 109/2022, (1014) WP/112/2022,\n        (1015) WP/126/2022, (1016) WP/127/ 2022, (1017) WP/128/\n        2022, (1018) WP/133/2022, (1019) WP/136/2022, (1020) WP/\n        137/2022 (1021) WP/143/ 2022, (1022) WP/144/2022, (1023)\n        WP/147/2022, (1024) WP/ 149/ 2022, (1025) WP/158/2022,\n        (1026) WP/159/2022, (1027) WP/ 160/2022, (1028) WP/161/\n        2022, (1029) WP/162/ 2022, (1030) WP/169/2022, (1031) WP/\n        172/2022, (1032) WP/ 173/2022, (1033) WP/177/2022, (1034)\n        WP/179/2022, (1035) WP/184/ 2022, (1036) WP/187/2022,\n        (1037) WP/188/ 2022, (1038) WP/189/2022, (1039) WP/190/\n        2022, (1040) WP/192/ 2022, (1041) WP/196/2022, (1042)\n        WP/197/2022, (1043) WP/ 198/ 2022, (1044) WP/201/2022,\n        (1045) WP/208/2022, (1046) WP/ 212/2022, (1047) WP/\n        215/2022, (1048) WP/217/2022, (1049) WP/218/2022, (1050)\n        WP/219/2022, (1051) WP/233/2022, (1052) WP/234/2022,\n        (1053) WP/239/2022, (1054) WP/242/ 2022, (1055) WP/244/\n        2022, (1056) WP/245/2022, (1057) WP/ 253/2022, (1058)\n        WP/256/2022, (1059) WP/260/ 2022, (1060) WP/262/2022,\n        (1061) WP/263/2022, (1062) WP/270/ 2022, (1063) WP/\n        274/2022, (1064) WP/275/2022, (1065) WP/279/ 2022, (1066)\n        WP/280/2022, (1067) WP/281/ 2022, (1068) WP/282/2022,\n        (1069) WP/287/2022, (1070) WP/289/ 2022, (1071) WP/290/\n        2022, (1072) WP/292/ 2022, (1073) WP/298/ 2022, (1074)\n        WP/300/2022, (1075) WP/301/2022, (1076) WP/302/2022,\n        (1077) WP/303/2022, (1078) WP(L.)/303/2022, (1079) WP/\n        304/2022, (1080) WP/306/ 2022, (1081) WP/307/ 2022, (1082)\n        WP/308/2022, (1083) WP/309/2022, (1084) WP/312/2022,\n        (1085) WP/314/2022, (1086) WP/315/ 2022, (1087) WP/323/\n        2022, (1088) WP/324/ 2022, (1089) WP/ 328/2022, (1090)\n        WP/330/2022, (1091) WP/332/2022, (1092) WP/335/2022,\n        (1093) WP/337/2022, (1094) WP/338/2022, (1095) WP/348/\n        2022, (1096) WP/356/ 2022, (1097) WP/ 362/2022, (1098)\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                   3/71            1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n        WP/370/2022, (1099) WP/375/2022, (1100) WP/377/2022,\n        (1101) WP/383/2022, (1102) WP/394/2022, (1103) WP/395/\n        2022, (1104) WP/396/ 2022, (1105) WP/398/ 2022, (1106)\n        WP/400/2022, (1107) WP/405/2022, (1108) WP/ 407/2022,\n        (1109) WP/412/2022, (1110) WP/413/2022, (1111) WP/414/\n        2022, (1112) WP/417/ 2022, (1113) WP/418/2022, (1114)\n        WP/421/2022, (1115) WP/422/2022, (1116) WP/427/ 2022,\n        (1117) WP/430/2022, (1118) WP/432/2022, (1119) WP/ 436/\n        2022, (1120) WP/450/ 2022, (1121) WP/458/2022, (1122)\n        WP/460/2022, (1123) WP/461/2022, (1124) WP/470/ 2022,\n        (1125) WP/472/2022, (1126) WP/473/2022, (1127) WP/ 479/\n        2022, (1128) WP/481/ 2022, (1129) WP/484/2022, (1130)\n        WP/488/2022, (1131) WP/489/2022, (1132) WP/494/ 2022,\n        (1133) WP/496/2022, (1134) WP/497/2022, (1135) WP/498/\n        2022, (1136) WP/499/ 2022, (1137) WP(L.)/502/2022 WITH\n        WP/646/2022, (1138) WP/505/2022, (1139) WP/507/ 2022,\n        (1140) WP/509/2022, (1141) WP/512/2022, (1142) WP/515/\n        2022, (1143) WP/518/ 2022, (1144) WP/519/2022, (1145) WP/\n        521/2022, (1146) WP/523/2022, (1147) WP/527/2022, (1148)\n        WP/530/2022, (1149) WP/531/2022, (1150) WP/536/2022,\n        (1151) WP/537/ 2022, (1152) WP/538/2022, (1153) WP/539/\n        2022, (1154) WP/541/2022, (1155) WP/547/2022, (1156) WP/\n        548/2022, (1157) WP/549/2022, (1158) WP/552/2022, (1159)\n        WP/556/2022, (1160) WP/559/2022, (1161) WP/560/2022,\n        (1162) WP/564/2022, (1163) WP/567/2022, (1164) WP/568/\n        2022, (1165) WP/569/2022, (1166) WP/570/2022, (1167) WP/\n        574/2022, (1168) WP/575/2022, WITH WP/558/2022 WITH\n        WP/563/2022, (1169) WP/577/2022, (1170) WP/579/2022,\n        (1171) WP/581/2022, (1172) WP/582/2022, (1173) WP/590/\n        2022, (1174) WP/591/2022 WITH WP/595/2022 WITH WP/628/\n        2022 (1175) WP/607/2022, (1176) WP/608/2022, (1177) WP/\n        616/2022, (1178) WP/619/2022, (1179) WP/622/ 2022, (1180)\n        WP/626/2022, (1181) WP/627/2022, (1182) WP/629/2022,\n        (1183) WP/632/2022, (1184) WP/635/2022, (1185) WP/638/\n        2022, (1186) WP/641/2022, (1187) WP/643/ 2022, (1188) WP/\n        648/2022, (1189) WP/650/2022, (1190) WP/651/2022, (1191)\n        WP/653/2022, (1192) WP/657/2022, (1193) WP/659/2022,\n        (1194) WP/660/2022, (1195) WP/661/ 2022, (1196) WP/662/\n        2022, (1197) WP/664/2022, (1198) WP/666/2022, (1199) WP\n        (L.)/667/2022, (1200) WP/672/2022, (1201) WP/676/2022,\n        (1202) WP/681/2022, (1203) WP/688/ 2022, (1204) WP/689/\n        2022 WITH WP/673/2022, (1205) WP(L.)/692/2022, (1206) WP/\n        693/2022, (1207) WP/702/2022, (1208) WP/706/2022, (1209)\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                    4/71            1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n        WP/707/2022, (1210) WP/709/ 2022, (1211) WP/711/2022,\n        (1212) WP/713/2022, (1213) WP/714/2022, (1214) WP/716/\n        2022, (1215) WP/717/2022, (1216) WP/718/2022, (1217) WP/\n        719/2022, (1218) WP/723/ 2022, (1219) WP/724/2022, (1220)\n        WP/725/2022, (1221) WP/726/2022, (1222) WP/727/2022,\n        (1223) WP/729/2022, (1224) WP/731/2022, (1225) WP/738/\n        2022, (1226) WP/739/ 2022, (1227) WP/745/2022, (1228) WP/\n        749/2022, (1229) WP/755/2022, (1230) WP/758/2022, (1231)\n        WP/761/2022, (1232) WP/763/2022, (1233) WP/765/2022,\n        (1234) WP/767/2022, (1235) WP/769/2022, (1236) WP/770/\n        2022, (1237) WP(L.)/770/2022, (1238) WP/773/2022, (1239)\n        WP/774/2022, (1240) WP/776/2022, (1241) WP/777/2022,\n        (1242) WP/781/2022, (1243) WP/792/2022, (1244) WP/795/\n        2022, (1245) WP(L.)/814/2022, (1246) WP/823/2022, (1247)\n        WP/826/2022, (1248) WP/832/2022, (1249) WP/833/2022,\n        (1250) WP/838/2022, (1251) WP/840/2022, (1252) WP/842/\n        2022, (1254) WP/872/2022, (1255) WP/998/2022, (1256) WP/\n        880/2022, (1257) WP/882/2022, (1258) WP/889/2022, (1259)\n        WP/893/2022, (1260) WP(L.)/897/2022, (1261) WP/903/2022,\n        (1262) WP/911/2022, (1263) WP/912/2022, (1264) WP/\n        918/2022, (1265) WP(L.)/920/2022, (1266) WP(L.)/ 935/2022,\n        (1267) WP(L.)/936/2022, (1268) WP/ 940/2022, (1269) WP/\n        959/2022 WITH WP/952/2022, (1270) WP/965/ 2022, (1271)\n        WP(L.)/972/2022, (1272) WP/983/2022, (1273) WP/995/2022,\n        (1274) WP/1006/2022, (1275) WP/663/2022, (1276) WP(L.)/\n        1116/2022, (1277) WP(L.)/1323/2022, (1278) WP/710/2022,\n        (1279) WP/698/2022, (1280) WP/741/2022, (1281) WP/867/\n        2022, (1282) WP(L.)/1651/2022, (1283) WP(L.)/1652/2022,\n        (1284) WP(L.)/1653/2022, (1285) WP/1034/ 2022, (1286) WP/\n        818/2022, (1287) WP(L.)/1702/2022, (1288) WP(L.)/2058/2022,\n        (1289) WP/881/2022, (1290) WP(L.)/2141/ 2022, (1291) WP(L.)\n        /2154/2022, (1292) WP(L.)/2373/2022, (1293) WP(L.)/\n        2386/2022, (1294) WP(L.)/2410/2022, (1295) WP/1003/2022,\n        (1296) WP(L.)/2434/2022, (1297) WP/1057/ 2022, (1298) WP/\n        997/2022, (1299) WP/1048/2022, (1300) WP/1049/2022, (1301)\n        WP(L.)/2526/2022, (1302) WP(L.)/2527/ 2022, (1303) WP(L.)/\n        2530/2022, (1304) WP/1033/2022, (1305) WP/921/2022, (1306)\n        WP/1035/2022, (1307) WP(L.)/2595/2022, (1308) WP(L.)/\n        2597/2022, (1309) WP(L.)/2621/2022, (1310) WP/922/ 2022,\n        (1311) WP(L.)/2671/2022, (1312) WP(L.)/2811/2022, (1313)\n        WP(L.)/3057/2022, (1314) WP(L.)/3092/2022, (1315) WP(L.)/\n        3143/2022, (1316) WP(L.)/3151/2022, (1317) WP/845/ 2022,\n        (1318) WP(L.)/3182/2022, (1319) WP(L.)/3221/2022, (1320)\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                   5/71             1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n        WP(L.)/3234/2022, (1321) WP(L.)/3235/2022, (1322) WP(L.)/\n        3255/2022, (1323) WP(L.)/3279/2022, (1324) WP(L.)/33\n        22/2022, (1325) WP(L.)/3326/2022, (1326) WP(L.)/3365/2022,\n        (1327) WP(L.)/3410/2022, (1328) WP(L.)/ 3411/2022, (1329)\n        WP(L.)/3416/2022, (1330) WP(L.)/3418/ 2022, (1331) WP(L.)/\n        3424/2022, (1332) WP(L.)/3428/2022, (1333) WP(L.)/3486/\n        2022, (1334) WP/901/2022, (1335) WP /899/2022, (1336) WP/\n        904/2022, (1337) WP/968/2022, (1338) WP/1031/2022, (1339)\n        WP(L.)/3804/2022, (1340) WP(L.)/3838/ 2022, (1341) WP(L.)/\n        3843/2022, (1342) WP(L.)/3914/2022, (1343) WP(L.)/3917/\n        2022, (1344) WP(L.)/3918/2022, (1345) WP(L.)/3919/2022,\n        (1346) WP(L.)/3921/2022, (1347) WP(L.)/ 3924/2022, (1348)\n        WP(L.)/3928/2022, (1349) WP(L.)/3932/ 2022, (1350) WP(L.)/\n        3945/2022, (1351) WP(L.)/3947/2022, (1352) WP(L.)/3952/\n        2022, (1353) WP(L.)/3953/2022, (1354) WP(L.)/3966/2022,\n        (1355) WP(L.)/4011/2022, (1356) WP(L.)/ 4013/2022, (1357)\n        WP(L.)/4015/2022, (1358) WP(L.)/4035/ 2022, (1359) WP(L.)/\n        4045/2022, (1360) WP(L.)/4072/2022, (1361) WP(L.)/4076/\n        2022, (1362) WP(L.)/4124/2022, (1363) WP(L.)/4146/2022,\n        (1364) WP(L.)/4357/2022, (1365) WP(L.)/4358/2022, (1366)\n        WP(L.)/4469/2022, (1367) WP(L.)/4473/ 2022, (1368) WP(L.)/\n        4474/2022, (1369) WP(L.)/4476/2022, (1370) WP(L.)/4479/\n        2022, (1371) WP(L.)/4481/2022, (1372) WP(L.)/4484/2022,\n        (1373) WP(L.)/4486/2022, (1374) WP(L.)/4544/2022, (1375)\n        WP(L.)/4621/2022, (1376) WP(L.)/4625/2022, (1378) WP/\n        1451/2021, (1379) WP/1475/2021, (1380) WP/1500/2021,\n        (1381) WP/1501/2021, (1382) WP/1502/2021, (1383) WP/1503/\n        2021, (1384) WP/1504/2021, (1385) WP/1512/ 2021, (1386)\n        WP/1525/2021, (1387) WP/1528/2021, (1388) WP/1530/2021,\n        (1389) WP/1533/2021, (1390) WP/1534/2021, (1391) WP/\n        1555/2021, (1392) WP/1556/2021, (1393) WP/1577/2021 1394)\n        WP/1587/2021, (1395) WP/1591/2021, (1396) WP/1597/2021,\n        (1397) WP/1624/2021, (1398) WP/1626/2021, (1399) WP/\n        1628/2021, (1400) WP/1629/2021, (1401) WP/1632/ 2021,\n        (1402) WP/1633/2021, (1403) WP/1653/2021, (1404) WP/1663/\n        2021, (1405) WP/1664/2021, (1406) WP/1668/2021, (1407)\n        WP/1669/2021, (1408) WP/1670/2021, (1409) WP/1675/ 2021,\n        (1410) WP/1699/2021, (1411) WP/1703/2021, (1412) WP/1718/\n        2021, (1413) WP/1730/2021, (1414) WP/1732/2021, (1415)\n        WP/1733/2021, (1416) WP/1735/2021, (1417) IA/1735/2021 IN\n        WP/3260/2021, (1418) WP/1746/2021, (1419) WP/1753 /2021,\n        (1420) WP/1755/2021, (1421) WP/1796/2021, (1422) WP/1829/\n        2021, (1423) WP/1891/2021, (1424) WP/1892/2021, (1425)\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                   6/71            1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n        WP/1896/2021, (1426) WP/1898/2021, (1427) WP/1991/2021,\n        (1428) WP/1992/2021, (1429) WP/1994/2021, (1430) WP/1998/\n        2021, (1431) WP/2002/2021, (1432) WP/2012/2021, (1433)\n        WP/2017/2021, (1434) WP/2018/2021, (1435) WP/2024/2021,\n        (1436) WP/2033/2021, (1437) WP/2052/2021, (1438) WP/2065/\n        2021, (1439) WP/2070/2021, (1440) WP/2081/2021, (1441)\n        WP/2098/2021, (1442) WP/2099/2021, (1443) WP/2100/2021,\n        (1444) WP/2103/2021, (1445) WP/2105/2021, (1446) WP/2111/\n        2021, (1447) WP/2112/2021, (1448) WP/2153/2021, (1449)\n        WP/2198/2021, (1450) WP/2205/2021, (1451) WP/2208/2021,\n        (1452) WP/2245/2021, (1453) WP/2251/2021, (1454) WP/2257/\n        2021, (1455) WP/2307/2021, (1456) WP/2309/2021, (1457)\n        WP/2317/2021, (1458) WP/2328/2021, (1459) WP/2332/2021,\n        (1460) WP/2339/2021, (1461) WP/2380/2021, (1462) WP/2400/\n        2021, (1463) WP/2402/2021, (1464) WP/2408/2021, (1465)\n        WP/2416/2021, (1466) WP/2435/2021, (1467) WP/2438/2021,\n        (1468) WP/2484/2021, (1469) WP/2485/2021, (1470) WP/2489/\n        2021, (1471) WP/2493/2021, (1472) WP/2497/2021, (1473)\n        WP/2499/2021, (1474) WP/2505/2021, (1475) WP/2507/2021,\n        (1476) WP/2509/2021, (1477) WP/2510/2021, (1478) WP/2511/\n        2021, (1479) WP/2516/2021, (1480) WP/2517/2021, (1481)\n        WP/2520/2021, (1482) WP/2521/2021, (1483) WP/2527/2021,\n        (1484) WP/2528/2021, (1485) WP/2530/2021, (1486) WP/2534/\n        2021, (1487) WP/2536/2021, (1488) WP/2540/2021, (1489)\n        WP/2541/2021, (1490) WP/2543/2021, (1491) WP/2548/2021,\n        (1492) WP/2553/2021, (1493) WP/2557/2021, (1494) WP/2560/\n        2021, (1495) WP/2570/2021, (1496) WP/2572/2021, (1497)\n        WP/2573/2021, (1498) WP/2575/2021, (1499) WP/2576/2021,\n        (1500) WP/2583/2021, (1501) WP/2587/2021, (1502) WP/2592/\n        2021, (1504) WP/2604/2021, (1505) WP/2606/2021, (1506)\n        WP/2608/2021, (1507) WP/2609/2021, (1508) WP/2612/2021,\n        (1509) WP/2614/2021, (1510) WP/2629/2021, (1511) WP/2631/\n        2021, (1512) WP/2632/2021, (1514) WP/2674/2021, (1515)\n        WP/2677/2021, (1516) WP/2687/2021, (1517) WP/2704/2021,\n        (1518) WP/2708/2021, (1519) WP/2720/2021, (1520) WP/2722/\n        2021, (1521) WP/2725/2021, (1522) WP/2734/2021, (1523)\n        WP/2754/2021 1524) WP/2855/2021, (1525) WP/2875/2021,\n        (1526) WP/2898/2021, (1527) WP/2902/2021, (1528) WP/2905/\n        2021, (1529) WP/2906/2021, (1530) WP/2945/2021, (1531)\n        WP/2951/2021, (1532) WP/3061/2021, (1533) WP/3068/2021,\n        (1534) WP/3070/2021, (1535) WP/3088/2021, (1536) WP/3095/\n        2021, (1537) WP/3189/2021, (1538) WP/3226/2021, (1539)\n        WP/3232/2021, (1540) WP/3237/2021, (1541) WP/3242/2021,\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                   7/71            1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n        (1542) WP/3244/2021, (1543) WP/3257/2021, (1544) WP/3262/\n        2021, (1545) WP/3294/2021, (1546) WP 3306/2021, (1547)\n        WP/3314/2021, (1548) WP/3325/2021, (1549) WP/3327/2021,\n        (1550) WP/3329/2021, (1551) WP/3336/2021, (1552) WP/3352/\n        2021, (1553) WP/3358/2021, (1554) WP/3371/2021, (1555)\n        WP/3423/2021, (1556) WP/3429/2021, (1557) WP/3444/2021,\n        (1558) WP/3448/2021, (1559) WP/3459/2021, (1560) WP/3468/\n        2021, (1561) WP/3469/2021, (1562) WP/3470/2021, (1563)\n        WP/3473/2021, (1564) WP/3494/2021, (1565) WP/3501/2021,\n        (1566) WP/3503/2021, (1567) WP/3511/2021, (1568) WP/3532/\n        2021, (1569) WP/3538/2021, (1570) WP/3539/2021, (1571)\n        WP/3558/2021, (1572) WP/3600/2021, (1573) WP/3610/2021,\n        (1574) WP/3643/2021, (1575) WP/3654/2021, (1576) WP/3655/\n        2021, (1577) WP/3703/2021, (1578) WP/3711/2021, (1579)\n        WP/3719/2021, (1580) WP/3759/2021, (1581) WP/3767/2021,\n        (1582) WP/3772/2021, (1583) WP/3776/2021, (1584) WP/\n        3790/2021, (1585) WP/3800/2021, (1586) WP/3803/2021,\n        (1587) WP/3805/2021, (1588) WP/3808/2021, (1589) WP/3822/\n        2021, (1590) WP/3831/2021, (1591) WP/3832/2021, (1593)\n        WP/3839/2021, (1594) WP/3840/ 2021, (1595) WP/3870/2021,\n        (1596)   WP/3876/2021,    (1598)  WP/3881/2021,    (1599)\n        WP/3882/2021, (1600) WP/3883/2021, (1601) WP/3885/2021,\n        (1602) WP/3891/ 2021, (1603) WP/3893/2021, (1604)\n        WP/3895/2021, (1605) WP/3915/2021, (1606) WP/3949/ 2021,\n        (1607)   WP/3975/2021,    (1608)  WP/3354/2021,    (1609)\n        WP/3417/2021, (1611) WP/3359/ 2021, (1612) WP/3478/2021,\n        (1613) WP/336/2022, (1614) WP/3441/2021, (1615) WP/3055/\n        2021, (1616) WP/3037/2021, (1617) WP/3040/2021, (1618)\n        WP/3038/2021, (1619) WP/3029/ 2021, (1620) WP/3034/2021,\n        (1621) WP/3036/2021, (1622) WP/3033/2021, (1623) WP/3357/\n        2021, (1624) WP/3328/2021, (1625) WP/3348/2021, (1626)\n        WP/3724/2021, (1627) WP/278/2 022, (1628) WP/214/2022,\n        (1629) WP/277/2022, (1630) WP/272/2022, (1631) WP/268/\n        2022, (1632) WP/3382/2021, (1633) WP/3557/2021, (1634)\n        WP/3425/2021, WITH WP/3461/ 2021, WITH WP/3465/2021,\n        WITH WP/3457/2021, WITH WP/3454/2021, WITH WP/3458/\n        2021, WITH WP/3103/2021, WITH WP/3144/2021, (1635)\n        WP/3631/2021, (1636) WP/3431/ 2021, (1637) WP/3813/2021,\n        (1638) WP/3551/2021, (1639) WP/3745/2021, (1640) WP/3046/\n        2021, (1641) WP/3035/2021, (1642) WP/3621/2021, (1643)\n        WP/3090/2021, (1644) WP/3651/ 2021, (1645) WP/3028/2021,\n        (1646) WP/3637/2021, (1647) WP/3091/2021, (1648) WP/3030/\n        2021, (1649) WP/3276/2021, (1650) WP/3158/2021, (1651)\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                   8/71             1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n        WP/3123/2021, (1652) WP/3195/ 2021, (1653) WP/3362/2021,\n        WITH WP/3344/2021, (1654) WP/3405/2021, (1655) WP/3379/\n        2021, (1656) WP/3392/2021, (1657) WP/3702/2021, (1658)\n        WP/3386/2021, (1659) WP/3440/ 2021, (1660) WP(L.)/15815/\n        2021, (1661) WP/3450/2021, (1662) WP (L.)/15837/2021,\n        (1663) WP(L.)/15856/2021, (1664) WP/3646/2021, (1665) WP/\n        3639/2021, (1666) WP/3268/2021, (1667) WP/587/2022, (1668)\n        WP/3872/2021, (1669) WP/3871/ 2021, (1670) WP/3435/2021,\n        (1671) WP/3171/2021, (1672) WP/3442/2021, (1673) WP/3505/\n        2021, (1674) WP/3451/2021, (1675) WP/3340/2021, (1676)\n        WP/3345/2021, (1677) WP/3346/ 2021, (1678) WP/3048/2021,\n        (1679) WP/3194/2021, (1680) WP/3873/2021, (1681) WP/3052/\n        2021, (1682) WP/3434/2021, (1683) WP/3290/2021, (1684)\n        WP/3438/2021, (1685) WP/3031/ 2021, (1686) WP/3349/2021,\n        (1687) WP/3333/2021, (1688) WP/3421/2021, (1689) WP/182/\n        2022, (1690) WP/3032/2021, (1691) WP/3039/2021, (1692)\n        WP/3296/2021, (1693) WP/232/ 2022, (1694) WP/3096/2021,\n        (1695) WP/3045/2021, (1696) WP/3351/2021, (1697) WP/3297/\n        2021, (1698) WP/181/2022, (1699) WP/186/2022, (1700)\n        WP/183/2022, (1701) WP/3137/ 2021, (1702) WP/3107/2021,\n        (1703) WP/3129/2021, (1704) WP/3121/2021, (1705) WP/3223/\n        2021, (1706) WP/887/2022, (1707) WP/3225/2021, (1708)\n        WP(L.)/16186/2021, (1709) WP/3228/2021, (1710) WP/3704/\n        2021, (1711) WP/3125/2021, (1712) WP/3149/2021, (1713)\n        WP/3720/2021, (1714) WP/3361/ 2021, (1715) WP/3100/2021,\n        (1716) WP/3471/2021, (1717) WP/3716/2021, (1718) WP/3156/\n        2021, (1719) WP/3606/2021, (1720) WP/3394/2021, (1721)\n        WP/3396/2021, (1722) WP/3407/ 2021, (1723) WP/3411/2021,\n        (1724) WP/3415/2021, (1725) WP/3406/2021, (1726) WP/3372/\n        2021, (1727) WP/3373/2021, (1728) WP/3642/2021\n                                   WITH\n        (1729) WP/3495/2021, (1730) WP/3682/2021, (1731) WP/3416/\n        2021, (1732) WP/3369/2021, (1733) WP/3701/2021, (1734)\n        WP/3389/2021, (1735) WP/3697/2021, (1736) WP/3388/2021,\n        (1737) WP/3385/2021, (1738) WP/3403/2021, (1739) WP/3399/\n        2021, (1740) WP/3521/2021, (1741) WP/3393/2021, (1742)\n        WP/3381/2021, (1743) WP/3404/2021, (1744) WP/3402/2021,\n        (1745) WP/3248/2021 WITH WP(L.)/16562/2021, (1746) WP/\n        3578/2021 1747) WP/3175/2021, (1748) WP/3179/2021, (1749)\n        WP/3274/2021, (1750) WP/3168/2021, (1751) WP/3188/2021,\n        (1752) WP/3128/2021, (1753) WP/3322/2021, (1754) WP/3933/\n        2021, (1755) WP/3173/2021, (1756) WP/3234/2021, (1757)\n        WP/3217/2021, (1758) WP/3211/2021, (1759) WP/3240/2021,\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                   9/71             1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n        (1760) WP/3764/2021, (1761) WP/3216/2021, (1762) WP(L.)/\n        16812/2021, (1763) WP/3420/2021, (1764) WP/3261/2021,\n        (1765) WP/3355/2021, (1766) WP/3251/2021, (1767) WP/3258/\n        2021, (1768) WP/3632/2021, (1769) WP/3559/2021, (1770)\n        WP/3250/2021, (1771) WP/3252/2021, (1772) WP/3264/2021,\n        (1773) WP/3253/2021, (1774) WP/3343/2021, (1775) WP/148/\n        2022, WITH WP/3347/2021, (1776) WP/3366/2021, (1777)\n        WP/3337/2021, (1778) WP/3334/2021, (1779) WP/3190/2021,\n        (1780) WP/3356/2021, (1781) WP/3819/2021, (1782) WP/3384/\n        2021, (1783) WP/3364/2021, (1784) WP/3689/2021, (1785)\n        WP/3690/2021, (1786) WP/3718/2021, (1787) WP/3445/2021,\n        (1788) WP/3455/2021, (1789) WP/3391/2021, (1790) WP/3409/\n        2021, (1791) WP/3390/2021, (1792) WP/614/2022, (1793)\n        WP/3408/2021, (1794) WP/3203/2021, (1795) WP/3630/2021,\n        (1796) WP/3807/2021, (1797) WP/3205/2021 WITH WP/3212/\n        2021, WITH WP/3204/2021, WITH WP/3231/2021, WITH\n        WP/3233/2021, (1798) WP/3177/2021, (1799) WP/3176/2021,\n        (1800) WP/3184/2021, (1801) WP/3187/2021, (1802) WP/3178/\n        2021, (1803) WP/3170/2021, (1804) WP/3180/2021, (1805)\n        WP(L.)/17719/2021, (1806) WP/3446/2021, (1807) WP/3165/\n        2021, (1808) WP/3098/2021, (1809) WP/3210/2021, (1810)\n        WP/3122/2021, (1811) WP/3112/2021, (1812) WP/3113/2021,\n        (1813) WP/3118/2021, (1814) WP/3150/2021, (1815) WP/3101/\n        2021, (1816) WP/3159/2021, (1817) WP/3102/2021, (1818)\n        WP/3104/2021, (1819) WP/3139/2021, (1820) WP/3116/2021,\n        (1821) WP/3126/2021, (1822) WP/3108/2021, (1823) WP/3145/\n        2021, (1824) WP/3422/2021, (1825) WP/3255/2021, (1826)\n        WP/3424/2021, (1827) WP/3023/2021, (1828) WP/3267/2021,\n        (1829) WP/3432/2021, (1830) WP/3787/2021, (1831) WP/3413/\n        2021, (1832) WP/3022/2021, (1833) WP/3249/2021, (1834)\n        WP/3430/2021, (1835) WP/3245/2021, (1836) WP/3449/2021,\n        (1837) WP/3259/2021, (1838) WP/3427/2021, (1839) WP(L.)/\n        18098/2021, (1840) WP(L.)/18161/2021, (1841) WP(L.)/18169/\n        2021, (1842) WP/3525/2021, (1843) WP/3552/2021, (1844)\n        WP/3387/2021, (1845) WP(L.)/18183/2021, (1846) WP/3370/\n        2021, (1847) WP/3368/2021, (1848) WP/3375/2021, (1849)\n        WP/3717/2021, (1850) WP/3383/2021, (1851) WP/3380/2021,\n        (1852) WP/3550/2021, (1853) WP(L.)/18209/2021, (1854)\n        WP(L.)/18211/2021, (1855) WP(L.)/18212/2021, (1856) WP/\n        3400/2021, (1857) WP/3378/2021, (1858) WP/3414/2021,\n        (1859) WP/3401/2021, (1860) WP/3412/2021, (1861) WP/\n        3398/2021, (1862) WP/3641/2021, (1863) WP/3395/2021,\n        (1864) WP/3447/2021, (1865) WP/3439/2021, (1866) WP/\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                    10/71           1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n        3309/2021, (1867) WP/3304/2021, (1868) WP/3301/2021,\n        (1869) WP/3310/2021, (1870) WP/3186/2021, (1871) WP/\n        3185/2021, (1872) WP/3157/2021, (1873) WP/3119/2021,\n        (1874) WP/3143/2021, (1875) WP/3124/2021, (1876) WP/3263/\n        2021, (1877) WP/3397/2021 WITH WP/3265/2021, WITH WP/\n        1765/2021, (1878) WP(L.)/18885/2021, (1879) WP/3530/ 2021,\n        (1880) WP/3912/2021, (1881) WP/3629/2021, (1882) WP\n        (L.)/19031/2021, (1883) WP(L.)/19069/2021, (1884) WP(L.)/\n        19079/2021, (1885) WP(L.)/19084/2021, (1886) WP(L.)/\n        19086/2021, (1887) WP/3191/2021, (1888) WP/3111/2021,\n        (1889) WP/3114/2021, (1890) WP/3109/2021, (1891) WP/3110/\n        2021, (1892) WP/3130/2021, (1893) WP/3120/2021, (1894)\n        WP/3148/2021, (1895) WP/3141/2021, (1896) WP/3115/2021,\n        (1897) WP/3151/2021, (1898) WP/3106/2021, (1899) WP/3146/\n        2021, (1900) WP/3138/2021, (1901) WP/3099/2021 1902) WP/\n        3097/2021, (1903) WP/3136/2021, (1904) WP/3133/2021,\n        (1905) WP/3160/2021, (1906) WP/3152/2021, (1907) WP/3105/\n        2021, (1908) WP/3117/2021, (1909) WP/3147/2021, (1910)\n        WP/3214/2021, (1911) WP/3726/2021, (1912) WP/3667/2021,\n        (1913) WP/2949/2021, (1914) WP/2953/2021, (1915) WP/3086/\n        2021, (1916) WP/3025/2021, (1917) WP(L.)/20078/2021,\n        (1918) WP/124/2022, (1919) WP/3507/2021, (1920) WP(L.)/\n        20895/2021, (1921) WP/3512/2021, (1922) WP/3668/2021,\n        (1923) WP/3591/2021, (1924) WP/3700/2021, (1925) WP/3634/\n        2021, (1926) WP(L.)/21166/2021, (1927) WP(L.)/21173/2021,\n        (1928) WP/3601/2021, (1929) WP/3573/2021, (1930) WP/3597/\n        2021, (1931) WP/927/2022, (1932) WP/925/2022, (1933)\n        WP/917/2022, (1934) WP/919/2022, (1935) WP/906/2022,\n        (1936) WP/916/2022, (1937) WP/3669/2021, (1938) WP/3604/\n        2021, (1939) WP/3582/2021, (1940) WP(L.)/27804/2021,\n        (1941) WP(L.)/27815/2021, (1942) WP(L.)/27871/2021, (1943)\n        WP(L.)/27948/2021, (1944) WP/246/2022, (1945) WP/617/\n        2022, (1946) WP(L.)/28806/2021, (1947) WP(L.)/28838/2021,\n        (1948) WP(L.)/28905/2021, (1949) WP(L.)/28908/2021, (1950)\n        WP(L.)/28914/2021, (1951) WP(L.)/28917/2021, (1952) WP(L.)/\n        29017/2021, (1953) WP/1030/2022, (1954) WP/1038/2022,\n        (1955) WP/288/2022, (1956) WP/522/2022, (1957) WP/529/\n        2022, (1958) WP/467/2022, (1959) WP(L.)/29939/2021, (1960)\n        WP(L.)/30181/2021, (1961) WP/469/2022, (1962) WP/359/\n        2022, (1963) WP/15/2022, (1964) WP/40/2022, (1965) WP/41/\n        2022, (1966) WP/47/2022, (1967) WP/52/2022, (1968) WP/\n        57/2022, (1969) WP/58/2022, (1970) WP/60/2022, (1971)\n        WP(L.)/69/2022, (1972) WP/72/2022, (1973) WP/80/2022,\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                   11/71            1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n        (1974) WP/89/2022) WITH IPA(L.)/29847/2021) IN WP/89/\n        2022, (1975) WP/106/2022, (1976) WP/111/2022, (1977) WP/\n        125/2022, (1978) WP/130/2022, (1979) WP/166/2022, (1980)\n        WP/170/2022, (1981) WP/194/2022, (1982) WP/202/ 2022,\n        (1983) WP/247/2022, (1984) WP/255/2022, (1985) WP/326/\n        2022, (1986) WP/339/2022, (1987) WP/344/2022, (1988)\n        WP/352/2022, (1989) WP/354/2022, (1990) WP/355/ 2022,\n        (1991) WP/357/2022, (1992) WP/392/2022, (1993) WP/397/\n        2022, (1994) WP/441/2022, (1995) WP/447/2022, (1996)\n        WP/675/2022, (1997) WP/474/2022, (1998) WP/475/ 2022,\n        (1999) WP/665/2022, (2000) WP/682/2022, (2001) WP/485/\n        2022, (2002) WP/486/2022, (2003) WP/487/2022, (2004)\n        WP/686/2022, (2005) WP(L.)/523/2022, (2006) WP(L.)/\n        524/2022, (2007) WP(L.)/526/2022, (2008) WP(L.)/531/2022,\n        (2009) WP(L.)/534/2022, (2010) WP/535/2022, (2011) WP/542/\n        2022, (2012) WP/551/2022, (2013) WP/553/2022, (2014) WP/\n        576/2022, (2015) WP/600/2022, (2016) WP/601/2022, (2017)\n        WP/602/2022, (2018) WP/603/2022, (2019) WP/604/2022,\n        (2020) WP/605/2022, (2021) WP/610/2022, (2022) WP/697/\n        2022, (2023) WP/631/2022, (2024) WP/633/2022, (2025)\n        WP/636/2022, (2026) WP/637/2022, (2027) WP/640/2022,\n        (2028) WP/649/2022, (2029) WP/652/2022, (2030) WP/655/\n        2022, (2031) WP/855/2022, (2032) WP/801/2022, (2033)\n        WP(L.)/713/2022, (2034) WP/720/2022, (2035) WP/865/2022,\n        (2036) WP(L.)/721/2022, (2037) WP/721/2022, (2038) WP(L.)/\n        732/2022, (2039) WP/753/2022, (2040) WP(L.)/790/2022,\n        (2041) WP(L.)/858/2022, (2042) WP(L.)/879/2022, (2043)\n        WP(L.)/882/2022, ( 2044) WP/933/2022, (2045) WP(L.)/ 934/\n        2022, (2046) WP(L.)/957/2022, (2047) WP/979/2022, (2048)\n        WP(L.)/984/2022, (2049) WP/1013/2022, (2050) WP/1015/\n        2022, (2051) WP/1023/2022, (2052) WP/1024/2022, (2053)\n        WP/1061/2022, (2054) WP/885/2022, (2055) WP(L.)/1124/\n        2022, (2056) WP(L.)/1134/2022, (2057) WP/898/2022, (2058)\n        WP(L.)/1466/2022, (2059) WP(L.)/1469/2022, (2060) WP(L.)/\n        1478/2022, (2061) WP(L.)/1483/2022, (2062) WP(L.)/ 1552/\n        2022, (2064) WP/896/2022, (2065) WP/897/2022, (2066)\n        WP(L.)/1640/2022, (2067) WP(L.)/ 1645/2022, (2068)\n        WP/812/2022, (2069) WP/810/2022, (2070) WP(L.)/1735/2022,\n        (2071) WP(L.)/2137/2022, (2072) WP(L.)/ 2144/2022, (2073)\n        WP(L.)/2210/2022, (2074) WP(L.)/2358/ 2022, (2075)\n        WP(L.)/2369/2022,    (2076)     WP(L.)/2375/2022,   (2077)\n        WP(L.)/2387/2022, (2078) WP/870/2022, (2079) WP(L.)/\n        2407/2022, (2080) WP(L.)/2429/2022, (2081) WP(L.)/2445/\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                    12/71           1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n        2022, (2082) WP(L.)/2578/2022, (2083) WP(L.)/2581/2022,\n        (2084) WP(L.)/2586/2022, (2085) WP(L.)/3042/2022, (2086)\n        WP(L.)/3048/2022, (2087) WP(L.)/3051/2022, (2088) WP(L.)/\n        3052/2022, (2089) WP(L.)/3056/2022, (2090) WP(L.)/3074/\n        2022, (2091) WP(L.)/3093/2022, (2092) WP(L.)/3147/2022,\n        (2093) WP(L.)/3148/2022, (2094) WP(L.)/3150/2022, (2095)\n        WP(L.)/3153/2022, (2096) WP(L.)/3157/2022, (2097) WP(L.)/\n        3163/2022, (2098) WP(L.)/3170/2022, (2099) WP(L.)/3175/\n        2022, (2100) WP(L.)/3180/2022, (2101) WP(L.)/3181/2022,\n        (2102) WP(L.)/3183/2022, (2103) WP(L.)/3186/2022, (2104)\n        WP(L.)/3213/2022, (2105) WP(L.)/3214/2022, (2106) WP(L.)/\n        3217/2022, (2107) WP(L.)/3241/2022, (2108) WP(L.)/3319/\n        2022, (2109) WP(L.)/3330/2022, (2110) WP(L.)/3331/2022,\n        (2111) WP(L.)/3332/2022, (2112) WP(L.)/3356/2022, (2113)\n        WP(L.)/3364/2022, (2114) WP(L.)/3368/2022, (2115) WP(L.)/\n        3405/2022, (2116) WP(L.)/3417/2022, (2117) WP(L.)/3435/\n        2022, (2118) WP(L.)/3940/2022.\n\n                                   WITH\n                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                       WRIT PETITION NO. 2899 OF 2021\n\nRAJEBAHADUR MADHUSUDAN TRIMBAK                 ....PETITIONER\n                V/s.\nINCOME TAX OFFICER) WARD & ANR.                ....RESPONDENTS\n\n                                WITH\n        WP/3750/2021 WITH WP/3751/2021 WITH WP/3479/2021\n        WITH WP/3480/2021 WITH WP/3481/2021 WITH WP/3482/\n        2021 WP/3483/2021 WITH WP/3859/2021 WITH WP/3745/\n        2021 WITH WP/3633/2021 WITH WP/3706/2021 WITH WP/\n        3601/2021 WITH WP/3857/2021 WITH WP/3747/2021 WITH\n        WP/3748/2021 WITH WP/3746/2021 WITH WP/4025/2021\n        WITH WP/4020/2021 WITH WP/3853/2021 WITH WP/4211/\n        2021 WITH WP/4230/2021 WITH WP/4208/2021 WITH WP/\n        4210/2021 WITH WP/4209/2021 WITH WP/4641/2021 WITH\n        WP/4640/2021 WITH WP/5362/2021 WITH WP/5363/2021\n        WITH WP/4931/2021 WITH WP/5087/2021 WITH WP/4928/\n        2021 WITH WP/4924/2021 WITH WP/5432/2021 WITH WP/\n        5429/2021 WITH WP/7944/2021 WITH WP/7072/2021 WITH\n        WP/7826/2021 WITH WP/9/2022 WITH WP/7928/2021 WITH\n        WP/7925/2021 WP(ST.)/22383/2021 WITH WP/12/2022 WITH\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                    13/71            1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n        WP(ST.)/22706/2021 WITH WP(ST.)/22710/2021 WITH WP/11/\n        2022 WITH (902) WP/3879/2021 WITH IA(ST)/2550/2022 IN\n        WP/3879/2021, (903) WP/9561/2021 WITH WP/9562/2021,\n        (904) WP/9565/2021, (905) WP/9569/2021 WITH WP/9570/\n        2021, (906) WP/9571/2021) WITH WP/9574/2021 WITH\n        WP/9575/2021 WITH WP/9573/2021, (907) WP/9583/2021\n        WITH WP/9582/2021, (908) WP/9584/2021, (909) WP(ST.)/47/\n        2022, (910) WP(ST.)/255/2022, (911) WP/330/2022, (912)\n        WP/498/2022, (913) WP(ST.)/566/2022, (914) WP/652/2022\n        WITH WP/450/2022 WITH WP/451/2022) WITH WP/453/2022,\n        WITH WP/626/2022 WITH WP/638/2022, (915) WP/794/2022,\n        (916) WP/824/2022, (917) WP/828/2022 WITH WP/825/2022\n        WITH WP/826/2022, WITH WP/827/2022, (918) WP/829/2022,\n        WITH WP/830/2022, (919) WP/831/2022, (920) WP/834/2022,\n        (921) WP(ST.)/862/2022, (922) WP(ST.)/863/2022, (923) WP\n        (ST.)/882/2022, (924) WP(ST.)/1186/2022, (925) WP/1376/\n        2022, (926) WP/1380/2022, (927) WP/1381/2022, (928)\n        WP/1382/2022, (929) WP/1383/2022, (930) WP(ST.)/1700/\n        2022, (931) WP(ST.)/2329/2022, (932) WP(ST.)/2330/2022,\n        (933) WP(ST.)/2331/2022, (934) WP(ST.)/2430/2022, (935)\n        WP(ST.)/3529/2022, (936) WP(ST.)/3643/2022, (937) WP(ST.)/\n        3644/2022, (938) WP(ST.)/3663/2022, (939)WP(ST.)/3664/2022\n                                   ****\n\n                           PRODUCTION BOARD\n        (501) WP(ST.)/4702/2022, (502) WP/3288/2021, (503) WP(L.)/\n        31788/2021, (504) WP/449/2022, (505) WP/757/2022, (506)\n        WP/785/2022, (507) WP/807/2022, (508) WP/857/2022, (509)\n        WP/863/2022, (510) WP/936/2022, (511) WP/943/2022, (512)\n        WP/954/2022, (513) WP/981/2022, (514) WP/984/2022, (515)\n        WP/987/2022, (516) WP/1008/2022, (517) WP/1018/2022,\n        (518) WP/1020/2022, (519) WP/1027/2022, (520) WP/1028/\n        2022, (521) WP/1040/2022, (522) WP/1044/2022, (523)\n        WP/1082/2022, (524) WP/1087/2022, (525) WP/1095/2022,\n        (526) WP(L.)/2851/2022, (527) WP(L.)/2965/2022, (528) WP\n        (L.)/3472/2022, (529) WP(L.)/3757/2022, (530) WP(L.)/3894/\n        2022, (531) WP(L.)/3926/2022, (532) WP/1125/2022, (533)\n        WP(L.)/3958/2022, (534) WP(L.)/3960/2022, (535) WP(L.)/\n        4033/2022, (536) WP(L.)/4043/2022, (537) WP/1108/2022,\n        (538) WP(L.)/4051/2022, (539) WP(L.)/4064/2022, (540) WP\n        (L.)/4065/2022, (541) WP(L.)/4070/2022, (542) WP(L.)/4071/\n        2022, (543) WP(L.)/4075/2022, (544) WP(L.)/4079/2022, (545)\n        WP(L.)/4102/2022, (546) WP(L.)/4157/2022, (547) WP(L.)/\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                     14/71              1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n     4252/2022, (548) WP(L.)/4256/2022, (549) WP(L.)/4257/2022,\n     (550) WP(L.)/4262/2022, (551) WP(L.)/4335/2022, (552) WP\n     (L.)/4342/2022, (553) WP(L.)/4343/2022, (554) WP(L.)/4344/\n     2022, (555) WP(L.)/4475/2022, (556) WP(L.)/4477/2022, (557)\n     WP(L.)/4554/2022, (558) WP(L.)/4568/2022, (559) WP(L.)/\n     4607/2022, (560) WP(L.)/4639/2022, (561) WP(L.)/4696/2022,\n     (562) WP(L.)/4698/2022, (563) WP(L.)/4829/2022, (564) WP\n     (L.)/4843/2022, (565) WP(L.)/4876/2022, (566) WP(L.)/4900/\n     2022, (567) WP(L.)/4917/2022, (568) WP(L.)/4942/2022, (569)\n     WP(L.)/4946/2022, (570) WP(L.)/4949/2022, (571) WP(L.)/\n     4957/2022, (572) WP(L.)/4958/2022, (573) WP(L.)/4962/2022,\n     (574) WP(L.)/4970/2022, (575) WP(L.)/4971/2022, (576) WP\n     (L.)/4973/2022, (577) WP(L.)/4980/2022, (578) WP(L.)/5042/\n     2022, (579) WP(L.)/5063/2022, (580) WP(L.)/5064/2022, (581)\n     WP(L.)/5067/2022, (582) WP(L.)/5071/2022, (583) WP(L.)/\n     5074/2022, (584) WP(L.)/5075/2022, (585) WP(L.)/5088/2022,\n     (586) WP(L.)/5110/2022, (587) WP(L.)/5236/2022, (588) WP\n     (L.)/5239/2022, (589) WP(L.)/5241/2022, (590) WP(L.)/5242/\n     2022, (591) WP(L.)/5244/2022, (592) WP(L.)/5247/2022, (593)\n     WP(L.)/5248/2022, (594) WP(L.)/5249/2022, (595) WP(L.)/\n     5250/2022, (596) WP(L.)/5251/2022, (597) WP(L.)/5252/2022,\n     (598) WP(L.)/5266/2022, (599) WP(L.)/5270/2022, (600) WP\n     (L.)/5276/2022, (601) WP(L.)/5288/2022, (602) WP(L.)/5289/\n     2022, (603) WP(L.)/5292/2022, (604) WP(L.)/5294/2022, (605)\n     WP(L.)/5305/2022, (606) WP(L.)/5318/2022, (607) WP(L.)/\n     5321/2022, (608) WP(L.)/5322/2022, (609) WP(L.)/5324/2022,\n     (610) WP(L.)/5330/2022, (611) WP(L.) 5367/2022, (612)\n     WP(L.) 5382/2022, (613) WP(L.)/5383/2022, (614) WP(L.)/\n     5385/2022, (615) WP(L.)/5433/2022, (616) WP/291/2022,\n     (617) WP/329/2022, (618) WP/346/2022, (619) WP/365/2022,\n     (620) WP/401/2022, (621) WP/415/2022, (622) WP/2253/2021,\n     (623) WP/794/2022, (624) WP(L.)/2234/2022, (625) WP(L.)/\n     5401/2022, (626) WP/3970/2021.\n                                    ----\nMr. J.D. Mistri, Mr. Percy Pardiwalla, Mr. Firoze B. Andhyarujina, Mr. B.M.\nChatterji, Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocates\nwith Mr. Tushar Hemani a/w. Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Mr. Harsh Kapadia\nBhatt, Adv. Gunjan Kakkad, Mr. Raj Darak, Mr. P.C. Tripathi, Mr. Paras Savla,\nMr. Harsh Shah, Mr. Pratik Poddar, Mr. Sukhsagar Syal, Mr. Jeet Kamdar, Mr.\nB.D. Damodar, Mr. Ajay Singh, Mr. K.K. Tiwari, Mr. Nishant Thakkar, Mr.\nNiraj Sheth, Mr. Harsh Kothari, Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, Ms. Aarti Sathe,\nMs. Aasavari Kadam, Mr. Nitesh Joshi, Mr. Jitendra Jain, Mr. Niraj Sheth, Mr.\nSubhash S. Shetty, Mr. Gautam Thacker, Mr. Shreyash J. Shah, Ms. Kavita\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                     15/71              1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nSingh, Ms. Benita Kapadia, Mr. Meit Sampat, Mr. Maneck Andhyarujina, Mr.\nArshad Shaikh, Mr. Netaji Gawade, Mr. Akshay Udeshi, Mr. Rahul Hakani,\nMs. Shashi Bekal, Ms. Neelam Jadhav, Mr. Harsh R. Kothari, Mr. Rana S.\nSingh, Mr. Nikhil Goel, Mr. Kamal Kant Thakur, Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, Mr.\nSameer Dalal, Mr. Prakash Shah, Mr. Durgaprasad Poojari, Mr. Jas Sanghavi,\nMr. Viraaj Bhate, Ms. Neha Ahuja, Mr. Hiten Chande, Mr. Rajendra Singhvi,\nMr. Dhrumil Shah, Mr. Roshan Gaud, Mr. Devagni Vastraj, Mr. Mahir Shah,\nMr. Bharat Raichandani, Mr. Mahesh Raichandani, Ms. Dipti Palli,\nMr. Rishabh Jain, Mr. Parth Jayant Bhatt, Mr. Mohd. Zain Khan, Mr. Faiyaz\nKhan, Mr. Dharmesh S. Jain, Mr. Shantibhushan Nirmal, Ms. Sneha\nRamnathan, Mr. Arun Jain, Mr. Pankaj Toprani, Mr. Krupa Toprani,\nMr. Madhur Agrawal, Mr. Suyash Gadre, Ms. Priyanka Bora, Ms. Apoorva\nKarmarkar, Ms. Rucha Surve, Ms. Fereshtre Sethna, Adv. Mrunal Parekh,\nMr. Abhishek Tilak, Mr. Ameya Pant, Mr. Sumit Raghani, Mr. Faran Khan,\nMr. Suraj Iyer, Ms. Gauri Joshi, Mr. Sankalp Sharma, Mr. Yahya Goghari,\nMr. Mustafa Shabbir Shamim, Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Sujit Lahoti, Mr. Pradeep\nRajagopal, Ms. Drishti Shah, Ms. Rekha Rajagopal, Mr. Chirag Bhavsar,\nMr. Suddhasattwa Roy, Mr. Yash Ghelani, Mr. Ayush P. Tiwari, Mr. Madhur\nRai, Mr. Rajeev Panday, Mr. Ashish Kanojia, Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Mr. Rohan\nDeshpande, Ms. Farzeen Khambatta, Mr. Shreyas Shrivastava, Ms. Dishya\nPandey, Mr. Vinod Santosh Kumar, Mr. Shanay Shah, Ms. Alefiyah S.,\nMs. Shreya Mohapatra, Mr. Karan Jain, Mr. Dhrumil Shah, Mr. Gopal\nMundhra, Mr. Parth Parikh, Mr. Rahul Hakani, Dr. N. Shastri, Mr. Rajan\nPillai, Ms. Priyanka Jain, Mr. Asadali Mazgaonwala, Mr. Kartikeya Desai,\nMs. Sayli Shinde, Ms. Shobha H. Jagtiani, Mr. Gautam Thacker, Ms. Sneha\nAgicha, Ms. Anjali Jhawar, Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin, Mr. Yatin Malvankar,\nMr. Dharan V. Gandhi, Mr. Durgaprasad Poojari, Mr. Jeet Gandhi, Mr. Shivam\nDubey, Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Jitendra Singh, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani,\nMs. Ananya Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh, Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Ms. Pratibha\nRupnawar, Mr. Kalpesh Turalkar, Ms. Samiksha Kanani, Mr. Mandar Vaidya,\nMr. Manan Sanghai, Mr. Paarth Singh, Mr. Ranit Basu, Ms. Maitri Malde,\nMr. Devendra Jain, Ms. Radha Halbe, Mr. Sanjeev M. Shah, Mr. Tanmay\nPhadke, Mr. Satish Mody, Ms. Aasifa Khan, Ms. Kavisha Shah, Mr. Nishit\nGandhi, Ms. Akshita Bhandari, Mr. Ruturaj H. Gurjar, Mr. Prateek Jha,\nMr. Muraleedharan, Mr. Atul K. Jasani, Mr. Sashi Tulsiyan, Mr. P.C. Tripathi,\nMr. S.C. Tiwari, Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar, Ms. Hetal Laghave, Ms. Sneha Jethwa,\nMr. Jayprakash Dhanuka, Mr. Mohit Saraogi, Mr. Vipul Shah, Mr. Prakul\nKhurana, Mr. Rajat Sharma, Mr. Uttam Rane, Mr. R.S. Padvekar, Mr. Tanzil R.\nPadvekar, Mr. Sumant R. Deshpande, Mr. Abhishek S. More, Mr. Bharat Jain,\nMr. Divyanshu Agrawal, Mr. Omprakash Parihar, Mr. Arpan M. Rajput,\nMr. B.V. Jhaveri, Mr. Abhishek Khandelwal, Mr. Jay Vora, Mr. Jay Rajesh\nThakker, Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Ms. Aashvi Shah, Mr. Naresh Jain, Ms. Neha\nAnchlia, Mr. Mahaveer Jain, Ms. Niyati Mankad (Hakani), Ms. Pradnya G.\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                  16/71             1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nVairale, Mr. Deepak Tralshawala, Mr. Vishnu Hadade, Mr. Brijesh\nPathak, Mr. S.S. Bedekar, Mr. Srihari Iyer, Ms. Latika Rungta, Mr.\nBalasaheb S. Yewale, Mr. Rahul Nerlekar, Mr. Vivek V. Khemka, Ms.\nDeepali Kamble, Dr. Avinash Poddar, Mr. Ajeet Manwani, Mr. Avinash\nManwani, Adv. Fenil Bhatt, Ms. Deepa Khare, Adv. Ashwini Ankharao,\nMs. Sanjana Muttath, Mr. Dinesh Ramesh Gulabani, Mr. Arvind\nDhanraj Aswani, Mr. Mihir Naniwadekar, Mr. Suyog Bhave, Ms. Rucha\nVaidya, Mr. Mitesh Parmar, Mr. K. Gopal, Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Mr. Om\nKandalkar, Adv. Biju Joseph, Mr. Hardik Vashist, Adv. Taranjeet Phull,\nMs. Chandni Tanna and Ms. Ritika Agarwal.\nWith Federal and Company, Kanga & Company, Mr. Sameer Dalal, Mint\nand Confreres, Mr. Atul K. Jasani, Mr. Shreyash J. Shah, Ragini Singh &\nAssociates, Sanjay Udeshi and Co., Ms. Priyanka Bora, Ms. Deepali\nKamble, Mr. Kartik Rajashekhar, Ms. Monika Walve, PDS Legal,\nLumiere Law Partners, Mr. Govind Javeri, Lex Services, UBR Legal\nAdvocates, One Legal, Mr. Anil Agrawal, Profess Law Associates, Mr.\nKartik Vig, PRH Juris Consults, Alathea Law, DMD Advocates, Agrud\nPartners, Ganesh & Co., White Knight Chamber, Shamim & Co., Sujit\nLahoti & Associates, Ms. Rekha Rajagopal, Vis Legis Law Practice, M D\nLegal, PRS Legal, Yuktam Legal, Ms. Farzeen Khambatta, Mr. Dinesh\nKumar Jain, Keystone Partners, Mr. Mohit Bhansali, D S Legal,\nEconomic Laws Practice, Lex India Juris, Vaish Associates, Kartikeya &\nAssociates, D M Harish & Co., Ms. Kaizeen Mistry, Mr. Kapil Hirani,\nLloyd and Johnson, Vaish Associates, Law Experts and India Law\nAlliance for Petitioners-Assessees in respective matters.\n\nMr. Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General a/w. Ms. Shehnaz V.\nBharucha, Mr. Suresh Kumar, Mr. Sham V. Walve, Mr. Akhileshwar\nSharma, Mr. Ashok Kotangle, Mr. Arvind Pinto (Senior Standing\nCounsel) a/w. Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Mr. Ankit Lohia, Mr. Varun Nathani,\nMr. Dinesh Kukreja, Ms. Smita Thakur, Mr. Chaitanya Chavan, Mr. D.P.\nSingh, Ms. Mohinee Chougule, Ms. Krunali Satra and Mr. Arjun Gupta\n(Advocates) a/w. Mr. P.A. Narayanan, Ms. Mamta Omle, Ms. Swapna\nGokhale, Mr. Pranil Sonawane, Mr. Vikas Khanchandani, Ms. P.S.\nCardozo, Mr. Avadhesh Saxena and Mr. Vipul Bajapeyee (Junior\nStanding Counsel) for Respondents-Revenue in respective matters.\n                               ----\n                      CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.\n                      RESERVED ON : 24th FEBRUARY 2022\n                      PRONOUNCED ON : 29th MARCH 2022\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                         17/71               1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT (PER K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) :WRIT PETITION NO.1334 OF 2021\n\n1               This writ petition, along with other writ petitions listed today,\n\nhave been filed by various assessees to challenge initiation of assessment\n\nproceedings underSection 148of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for\n\ndifferent assessment years. All notices in these petitions for initiation of\n\nassessment proceedings have been issued after 1st April 2021.2               Since substantial questions of law were involved, interim\n\nprotection has been granted. Revenue has also filed reply in many petitions\n\nand many petitioners have also filed rejoinder. Since issues were identical,\n\nwe did not insist on the Revenue filing a reply in each of the petitions.3               The cause of action of dispute arising in all these writ petitions\n\npurely being legal, i.e., on the validity of the assessment proceedings\n\ninitiated against assessees after 1st April 2021 under the provisions of the\n\nAct, as it existed before 1st April 2021, read with the Taxation and Other\n\nLaws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (the\n\nRelaxation Act) and the notifications issued thereunder, the peculiar facts or\n\npleadings of each case, in our view, are not material to the adjudication of\n\nthe issues involved.4               We have heard the counsels led by Mr. Mistri, Mr. Pardiwalla,\n\nMr. Andhyarujina and Mr. Chatterji for petitioners and Mr. Anil Singh,\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                         18/71         1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nlearned Additional Solicitor General of India for the Revenue.5                  Before we took up this matter, various High Courts have\n\nconsidered identical issue and except a Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh\n\nHigh Court in Palak Khatuja V/s. Union of India and Ors. 1, all other Courts\n\nhave held that the notices, as issued by respondents underSection 148of\n\nthe Act post 1st April 2021, are bad in law. The other Courts, which have\n\nconsidered this issue, are the High Court of Allahabad (Division Bench) in\n\nAshok Kumar Agarwal V/s. Union of India 2, High Court of Delhi (Division\n\nBench) in Mon Mohan Kohli V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax &\n\nAnr.3, High Court of Rajasthan (Single Judge) in Bpip Infra (P.) Ltd. V/s.Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Jaipur4 and High Court of Calcutta in\n\nBagaria Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. V/s. Union of India\n\nand Ors.5 and Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Taneja V/s.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Jaipur and Anr. 6 and High Court of Madras\n\n(Division Bench) in Vellore Institute of Technology V/s. Central Board of\n\nDirect Taxes and Anr.7\n\n\n6                  The provisions for reassessment to reopen the assessment under\n\ncertain circumstances was amended by theFinance Act, 2021 with effect\n\nfrom 1st April 2021. Prior thereto, under Section 147 of the Act, the1. 2021 (438) ITR 6222. (2021) 131 taxmann.com 22 (Allahabad)3. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi)4. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 48 (Rajasthan)5. W.P.O. No.244 of 2021 dated 17.01.20226. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.969 of 2022 pronounced on 27.01.20227. Writ Petition No.15019 of 2021 dated 04.02.2022\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                       19/71               1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nAssessing Officer, if he had reason to believe that any income chargeable to\n\ntax had escaped assessment for any assessment year, he could, subject to the\n\nprovisions ofSections 148to153of the Act, assess or reassess such income\n\nand also any other income chargeable to tax which had escaped assessment.As perSection 148of the Act, before making such assessment or\n\nreassessment underSection 147of the Act, the Assessing Officer had to\n\nserve a notice on the assessee requiring him to furnish the return of his\n\nincome. Sub-section (2) of Section 148 provided that the Assessing Officer\n\nshall, before issuing any notice, record his reasons for doing so.7               As per sub-section (1) ofSection 149read withSection 147of\n\nthe Act, if the assessment has been completed underSection 143(3)of the\n\nAct, no notice underSection 148of the Act could be issued beyond a period\n\nof four years from the end of relevant assessment year unless the income\n\nchargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the reason of the failure on\n\nthe part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary\n\nfor assessment and in any case, no such notice could be issued beyond a\n\nperiod of six years from the end of relevant assessment year.8Section 151of the Act pertained to sanction for issuance of\n\nnotice. Sub-section (1) ofSection 151of the Act provides that no such\n\nnotice could be issued underSection 148of the Act by the Assessing Officer\n\nafter expiry of a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                        20/71                1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nyear unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or\n\nPrincipal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons\n\nrecorded by the Assessing Officer that it was a fit case for issuance of such\n\nnotice. As per sub-section (2) ofSection 151of the Act, in a case other than\n\na case falling under sub-section (1), no notice could be issued by the\n\nAssessing Officer who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner unless the\n\nJoint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing\n\nOfficer that it is a case fit for issuance of notice.Section 153of the Act\n\ncontained provisions for time limit for completion of assessments and\n\nreassessments. In nutshell, this was the scheme for reassessment that existed\n\nprior to the amendments made by theFinance Act, 2021.9               The entire scheme of reassessment underwent major changes\n\nunder theFinance Act, 2021 and the amendments have been brought into\n\nwith effect from 1st April 2021.Section 147of the Act, as it stands now,\n\nprovides that if any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for\n\nany assessment year, the Assessing Officer may, subject to the provisions ofSections 148to153of the Act, assess or reassess such income or recompute\n\nthe loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction\n\nfor such assessment year. The distinction between the cases where income\n\nchargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the failure of the assessee to\n\ndisclose truly or fully all material facts and the rest is a thing of the past.Gauri Gaekwad\n                                               21/71                  1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n10                The newSection 148of the Act provides before makingassessment, reassessment or recomputation underSection 147of the Act\n\nand subject to the provisions ofSection 148Aof the Act, the Assessing\n\nOfficer has to serve on the assessee a notice along with a copy of the order\n\npassed if required under clause - (d) ofSection 148Aof the Act requiring\n\nhim to furnish the return within the specified time and in prescribed form.The proviso toSection 148of the Act provides that no notice shall be issued\n\nunless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that\n\nthe income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in case of the assessee\n\nfor the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained\n\nprior approval of the specified authority for issuing such notice. What\n\n"information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income\n\nchargeable to tax has escaped assessment" means has been provided in\n\nExplanation (1) toSection 148of the Act. Situations where the Assessing\n\nOfficer shall be deemed to have information which suggests that the income\n\nchargeable to tax has escaped assessment is listed in Explanation (2) toSection 148of the Act.11Section 148Ais newly inserted and it pertains to conducting\n\nenquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice underSection 148of\n\nthe Act and it reads as under:-"148A.--The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any\n                notice undersection 148,--(a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                22/71                   1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                of specified authority, with respect to the information which\n                suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped\n                assessment;(b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee,\n                with the prior approval of specified authority, by serving\n                upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may\n                be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and\n                but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such\n                notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on\n                the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice\n                undersection 148should not be issued on the basis of\n                information which suggests that income chargeable to tax\n                has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant\n                assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if\n                any, as per clause (a);(c) consider the reply of assessee furnished, if any, in\n                response to the show-cause notice referred to in clause (b);(d) decide, on the basis of material available on record\n                including reply of the assessee, whether or not it is a fit case\n                to issue a notice undersection 148, by passing an order, with\n                the prior approval of specified authority, within one month\n                from the end of the month in which the reply referred to in\n                clause (c) is received by him, or where no such reply is\n                furnished, within one month from the end of the month in\n                which time or extended time allowed to furnish a reply as\n                per clause (b) expires:Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply in\n                a case where,--(a) a search is initiated under section 132 or books of\n                account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned\n                under section 132A in the case of the assessee on or after the\n                1st day of April, 2021; or(b) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval\n                of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any\n                money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing,\n                seized in a search under section 132 or requisitioned under\n                section 132A, in the case of any other person on or after the\n                1st day of April, 2021, belongs to the assessee; or(c) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior\n                approval     of   the    Principal   Commissioner      or\n                Commissioner that any books of account or documents,\n                seized in a search undersection 132or requisitioned\n                undersection 132A, in case of any other person on or\n                after the 1st day of April, 2021, pertains or pertain to,\n                or any information contained therein, relate to, the\n                assessee.Gauri Gaekwad\n                                               23/71                  1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.docExplanation.--For the purposes of this section, specified\n                authority means the specified authority referred to in section151."12                As per this newly introduced provision, before issuing notice\n\nunderSection 148of the Act, the Assessing Officer may conduct any enquiry\n\nif required with the prior approval of the specified authority with respect to\n\nthe information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has\n\nescaped assessment. The Assessing Officer has to provide an opportunity of\n\nbeing heard to the assessee by serving on him a notice to show cause within\n\nthe specified time which shall not be less than seven days but not exceeding\n\n30 days from the date of issue of notice but which can be extended by him\n\non an application by the assessee. Such notice would be to call upon the\n\nassessee why a notice underSection 148of the Act should not be issued on\n\nthe basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has\n\nescaped assessment. As per clause - (c), the Assessing Officer has to consider\n\nthe reply of the assessee furnished, if any, in response to such notice. As per\n\nclause - (d), the Assessing Officer would decide on the basis of material\n\navailable on record including the reply of the asssessee whether or not the\n\ncase is fit for issuance of notice underSection 148of the Act, for which\n\npurpose he would pass an order with the prior approval of the specified\n\nauthority within one month from the end of the month in which the reply\n\nfrom the assessee is received by him and where no such reply is furnished,\n\nwithin one month from the end of the month in which time or extended\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                24/71                  1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\ntime for furnishing reply expires. Proviso toSection 148Aof the Act lists the\n\ncases where this procedure would not apply. As per the explanation toSection 148Aof the Act, the specified authority means the authority referred\n\nto inSection 151of the Act.13Section 149of the Act also underwent major changes as regards\n\ntime limit for issuing notice underSection 148of the Act.Section 149now\n\nreads as under :"149.(1) No notice undersection 148shall be issued for the\n                relevant assessment year,--(a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant\n                assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b);(b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed\n                from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the\n                Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or\n                other documents or evidence which reveal that the income\n                chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has\n                escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty\n                lakh rupees or more for that year:Provided that no notice undersection 148shall be issued at\n                any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning\n                on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if such notice could not\n                have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the\n                time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-\n                section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before\n                the commencement of theFinance Act, 2021:Provided further that the provisions of this sub-section\n                shall not apply in a case, where a notice undersection\n                153A, orsection 153Cread withsection 153A, is\n                required to be issued in relation to a search initiated\n                undersection 132or books of account, other\n                documents or any assets requisitioned undersection\n                132A, on or before the 31st day of March, 2021:Provided also that for the purposes of computing the\n                period of limitation as per this section, the time or\n                extended time allowed to the assessee, as per\n                show-cause notice issued under clause (b) of section 148A\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                25/71                  1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                or the period during which the proceeding undersection 148Ais stayed by an order or injunction of\n                any court, shall be excluded:Provided also that where immediately after the\n                exclusion of the period referred to in the immediately\n                preceding proviso, the period of limitation available to\n                the Assessing Officer for passing an order under\n                clause (d) ofsection 148Ais less than seven days,\n                such remaining period shall be extended to seven\n                days and the period of limitation under this sub-\n                section shall be deemed to be extended accordingly.Explanation.--For the purposes of clause (b) of this sub-\n                section, "asset" shall include immovable property, being land\n                or building or both, shares and securities, loans and\n                advances, deposits in bank account.(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice\n                shall be subject to the provisions ofsection 151."14                 As per sub-section (1) ofSection 149of the Act, as it stands\n\nnow, time limit for issuing notice underSection 148of the Act is three years\n\nfrom the end of relevant assessment year unless the case falls under\n\nclause - (b) where the period available for issuing such notice is ten years.Clause - (b) applies to cases where the Assessing Officer has in his\n\npossession books of accounts or other documents or evidence which reveal\n\nthat the income chargeable to tax represented in the form of asset which has\n\nescaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to total of Rs.50 lakhs\n\nor more. Explanation toSection 149of the Act provides that for the purpose\n\nof clause - (b) the asset shall include immovable property, being land or\n\nbuilding or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank\n\naccount.Gauri Gaekwad\n                                        26/71               1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n15Section 151of the Act pertaining to sanction for issue of noticehas also been amended. As per the amended provisions, the specified\n\nauthority for the purposes of Sections 148 and 148A of the Act would be(i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or\n\nDirector, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of\n\nrelevant assessment year and (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal\n\nDirector General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or\n\nPrincipal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more\n\nthan three years have elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year.16Section 153of the Act containing time limit for completion of\n\nassessment, reassessment and recomputation has also been amended. The\n\ntime limits have been shortened.17              When we compare the existing and the substituted provisions,\n\nthe time limit of four years for issuing notice underSection 148of the Act in\n\nnormal cases and six years in cases where income chargeable to tax has\n\nescaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose\n\ntruly and fully all material facts under the oldSection 148of the Act is\n\nhistory and fresh time limits have been prescribed. Under the amendedSection 147of the Act, new time limits provided are three years unless\n\nincome chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, amounts to or is\n\nlikely to amount Rs.50 lakhs or more and in which case, the time limit for\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                         27/71            1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nissuing notice underSection 148of the Act applicable would be ten years\n\nfrom the end of relevant assessment year.The Assessing Officer has reason to believe, as previously\n\nreferred toSection 147of the Act, has been done away with and the proviso\n\ntoSection 148of the Act, as it stands now, provides no notice for the\n\nreassessment would be issued unless there is information with the Assessing\n\nOfficer which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped\n\nassessment.18                 The major change under the new regime of reassessment\n\nis introduction ofSection 148Aof the Act. This section in a way codifies the\n\nprocedure prescribed in the well known case of the Supreme Court in GKN\n\nDriveshafts (India) Ltd. V/s. Income Tax Officer 8. Clause - (a) ofSection\n\n148Aof the Act permits the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiry, if required,\n\nwith the prior approval of the specified authority with respect to the\n\ninformation which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped\n\nassessment. Clause - (b) ofSection 148Aof the Act requires the Assessing\n\nOfficer to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by issuing\n\nnotice calling upon him why notice underSection 148of the Act should not\n\nbe issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable\n\nto tax has escaped assessment. Clause - (c) requires the Assessing Officer to\n\nconsider the reply of the assessee, if furnished. As per clause - (d), the8. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                     28/71               1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nAssessing Officer would decide on the basis of material available on record\n\nand if reply is furnished, whether it is a fit case for issuing notice underSection 148of the Act.Thus, the assessee even has an opportunity to oppose even\n\nissuance of notice underSection 148of the Act and he could legitimately\n\nexpect the Assessing Officer to provide him the information which according\n\nto him suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.19              Much before theFinance Act, 2021 was perhaps even\n\nconceived, sometime in March 2020 the country was hit by the COVID-19\n\npandemic that led to nationwide strict lockdowns putting the lives of\n\ncitizens and the Government machinery totally out of gear. It became\n\nalmost impossible for individuals as well as Government authorities to\n\nadhere to several statutory time limits which in many cases were not\n\nextendable. To overcome these difficulties, particularly in the context of tax\n\ncollections, the Government of India introduced the Relaxation Act as an\n\nordinance and then later it was replaced by the Act. As an ordinance, it was\n\nonly relaxation of certain provisions but when it became an Act, it became\n\nrelaxation and amendment of certain provisions.The Actprovided for\n\nspecified Acts which were defined underSection 2and it included the Act,\n\ni.e.,Income Tax Act, 1961. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation\n\nOrdinance, 2020 provided that any time limit in the specified Acts, which\n\nfell during the period from 20th March 2020 to 29th June 2020 or such other\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                          29/71                 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\ndate after 29th June 2020 as the Central Government may by notification\n\nspecify for completion or compliance of the action and where such\n\ncompletion and compliance had not been made within the time, then the\n\ntime limit for such purpose notwithstanding anything contained in the\n\nspecified Act would stand extended to 30th June 2020 or such other date\n\nafter 30th June 2020 as the Central Government may by notification specify\n\nin this behalf. The Relaxation Act, which replaced the ordinance with effect\n\nfrom 29th September 2020, under sub-section (1) ofSection 3provided that\n\nthe time limits specified in the specified Acts, which fell during the period\n\nfrom 20th March 2020 to 31st December 2020 or such other date after\n\n31st December 2020 as the Central Government may notify, were extended\n\nto 31st March 2021 or such other date after 31 st March 2021 as the Central\n\nGovernment       may by notification specify. Notwithstanding anything\n\ncontained in the Specified Act, such extension would operate.20              In exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of\n\nthe Relaxation Act, the Government of India through the Central Board\n\nof Direct Taxes issued a Notification No.20 of 2021 dated 31 st March 2021\n\nand extended, besides others, time limit for issuance of notice underSection\n\n148of the Act. The said notification reads as under:Notification No.20 of 2021 dated 31st March 2021\n\n                               MINISTRY OF FINANCE\n                              (Department of Revenue)\n                         (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)\n                                  NOTIFICATION\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                30/71                   1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                                 New Delhi, the 31st March, 2021\n                S.O. 1432(E).--In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-\n                section (1) ofsection 3of the Taxation and Other Laws\n                (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020\n                (38 of 2020) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), and in\n                partial modification of the notification of the Government of\n                India in the Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue)\n                No.93/2020 dated the 31st December, 2020, published in the\n                Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,Section 3, Sub-section(ii), vide number S.O. 4805(E), dated the 31 st December,\n                2020, the Central Government hereby specifies that,--(A) where the specified Act is theIncome-tax Act, 1961 (43 of\n                1961) (hereinafter referred to as theIncome-tax Act) and, --(a) the completion of any action referred to in clause (a) of\n                sub-section (1) ofsection 3of the Act relates to passing of an\n                order under sub-section (13) ofsection 144Cor issuance of\n                notice undersection 148as per time-limit specified insection\n                149or sanction undersection 151of the Income-tax Act, --(i) the 31st day of March, 2021 shall be the end date of the\n                period during which the time-limit, specified in, or prescribed\n                or notified under, the Income-tax Act falls for the completion\n                of such action; and(ii) the 30th day of April, 2021 shall be the end date to which\n                the time-limit for the completion of such action shall stand\n                extended.Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified\n                that for the purposes of issuance of notice undersection 148as per time-limit specified insection 149or sanction undersection 151of the Income-tax Act, under this sub-clause, the\n                provisions ofsection 148,section 149andsection 151of the\n                Income-tax Act, as the case may be, as they stood as on the\n                31st day of March 2021, before the commencement of theFinance Act, 2021, shall apply.(b) the compliance of any action referred to in clause (b) of\n                sub-section (1) ofsection 3of the said Act relates to\n                intimation of Aadhaar number to the prescribed authority\n                under sub-section (2) ofsection 139AAof the Income-tax Act,\n                the time-limit for compliance of such action shall stand\n                extended to the 30th day of June, 2021.(B) where the specified Act is the Chapter VIII of the Finance\n                Act, 2016 (28 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as theFinance\n                Act) and the completion of any action referred to in clause (a)\n                of sub-section (1) ofsection 3of the said Act relates to\n                sending an intimation under sub-section (1) of section 168 of\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                 31/71                   1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                the Finance Act, --(i) the 31st day of March, 2021 shall be the end date of the\n                period during which the time-limit, specified in, or prescribed\n                or notified under, the Finance Act falls for the completion of\n                such action; and(ii) the 30th day of April, 2021 shall be the end date to which\n                the time-limit for the completion of such action shall stand\n                extended.[Notification No. 20/2021/F. No. 370142/35/2020-TPL]\n                SHEFALI SINGH, Under Secy., Tax Policy and Legislation\n                Division\n\n                Note : The principal notification was published in the Gazette\n                of India, Extraordinary, Part II,Section 3, Sub-section (ii) vide\n                S.O. No. 4805 dated 31 st December, 2020.(emphasis supplied)\n\n\n21                 This was followed by another Notification No.38 of 2021 dated\n\n27th April 2021 and later a Notification No.74 of 2021 dated 25 th June 2021.Notification Nos.20 of 2021 and 38 of 2021 are the impugned notifications.Notification No.38 of 2021 and 74 of 2021 read as under :Notification No.38/2021 dated 27th April 2021\n\n                                   MINISTRY OF FINANCE\n                                  (Department of Revenue)\n                             (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)\n                                       NOTIFICATION\n                                New Delhi, the 27th April, 2021\n\n                   S.O. 1703(E).-- In exercise of the powers conferred by\n                   sub-section (1) ofsection 3of the Taxation and Other\n                   Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions)\n                   Act, 2020 (38 of 2020) (hereinafter referred to as the said\n                   Act), and in partial modification of the notifications of the\n                   Government of India in the Ministry of Finance,\n                   (Department of Revenue) No. 93/2020 dated the 31st\n                   December, 2020, No. 10/2021 dated the 27 th February,\n                   2021 and No. 20/2021 dated the 31 st March, 2021,\n                   published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II,Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O. 4805(E),\n                   dated the 31st December, 2020, vide number S.O. 966(E)\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                  32/71                 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                    dated the 27th February, 2021 and vide number S.O.\n                    1432(E) dated the 31st March, 2021, respectively\n                    (hereinafter referred to as the said notifications), the\n                    Central Government hereby specifies for the purpose of\n                    sub-section (1) ofsection 3of the said Act that, --\n                    (A) where the specified Act is theIncome-tax Act, 1961\n                    (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as theIncome-tax\n                    Act) and, --(a) the completion of any action, referred to in clause (a)\n                    of sub-section (1) ofsection 3of the said Act, relates to\n                    passing of any order for assessment or reassessment under\n                    theIncome-tax Act, and the time limit for completion of\n                    such action undersection 153orsection 153Bthereof,\n                    expires on the 30th day of April, 2021 due to its extension\n                    by the said notifications, such time limit shall further\n                    stand extended to the 30th day of June, 2021;(b) the completion of any action, referred to in clause (a)\n                    of sub-section (1) ofsection 3of the said Act, relates to\n                    passing of an order under sub-section (13) ofsection 144Cof the Income-tax Act or issuance of notice undersection\n                    148as per time-limit specified insection 149or sanction\n                    undersection 151of the Income-tax Act, and the time\n                    limit for completion of such action expires on the 30 th day\n                    of April, 2021 due to its extension by the said\n                    notifications, such time limit shall further stand extended\n                    to the 30th day of June, 2021.* Explanation.9-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby\n                    clarified that for the purposes of issuance of notice undersection 148as per time-limit specified insection 149or\n                    sanction undersection 151of the Income-tax Act, under\n                    this sub-clause, the provisions ofsection 148,section 149andsection 151of the Income-tax Act, as the case may be,\n                    as they stood as on the 31 st day of March 2021, before the\n                    commencement of theFinance Act, 2021, shall apply.(B) where the specified Act is the Chapter VIII of the\n                    Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as\n                    theFinance Act) and the completion of any action,\n                    referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) ofsection 3of\n                    the said Act, relates to sending an intimation under sub-\n                    section (1) ofsection 168of the Finance Act, and the time\n                    limit for completion of such action expires on the 30 th day\n                    of April, 2021 due to its extension by the said\n                    notifications, such time limit shall further stand extended\n                    to the 30th day of June, 2021.9. * This explanation is also under challenge.Gauri Gaekwad\n                                             33/71                   1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc[Notification No. 38 /2021/ F. No. 370142/35/2020-TPL]\n                RAJESH KUMAR BHOOT, Jt. Secy. Tax Policy & Legislation\n                Division\n\n                Note : The principal notification was published in the\n                Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,Section 3, Sub-\n                section (ii) vide S.O. No. 4805 dated 31st December, 2020.(emphasis supplied)\n\n\n\n                      Notification No.74/2021 dated 25th June 2021\n\n                                   MINISTRY OF FINANCE\n                               (Department of Revenue)\n                          (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES)\n                                    NOTIFICATION\n                             New Delhi, the 25th June, 2021\n\n                S.O. 2580(E).--In exercise of the powers conferred by\n                sub-section (1) ofsection 3of the Taxation and Other\n                Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions)\n                Act, 2020 (38 of 2020) (hereinafter referred to as the said\n                Act), and in partial modification of the notifications of the\n                Government of India in the Ministry of Finance,\n                (Department of Revenue) No. 93/2020 dated the 31st\n                December, 2020, published in the Gazette of India,\n                Extraordinary, Part-II,Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide\n                number S.O. 4805(E), dated the 31st December, 2020 and\n                No. 10/2021 dated the 27th February, 2021, published in\n                the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II,Section 3, Sub-\n                section (ii),vide number S.O. 966(E) dated the 27 th\n                February, 2021 and No. 20/2021 dated the 31st March,\n                2021, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,\n                Part-II,Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O\n                1432(E) dated the 31st March, 2021 and No. 38/2021\n                dated 27th April, 2021, published in the Gazette of India,\n                Extraordinary, Part-II,Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide\n                number S.O. 1703(E) dated the 27th              April, 2021,\n                (hereinafter referred to as the said notifications), the\n                Central Government hereby specifies for the purpose of\n                sub-section (1) ofsection 3of the said Act, that, --(A) where the specified Act is theIncome-tax Act, 1961\n                (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as theIncome-tax\n                Act) and,--(i) the completion of any action, referred to in clause (a)\n                of sub-section (1) ofsection 3of the said Act, relates to\n                passing of any order ,-Gauri Gaekwad\n                                             34/71                  1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc(a) for assessment or reassessment under theIncome-tax\n                Act, and the time limit for completion of such action undersection 153orsection 153Bthereof, expires on the 30th\n                day of June, 2021 due to its extension by the said\n                notifications, such time limit shall further stand extended\n                to the 30th day of September, 2021;(b) for imposition of penalty under Chapter XXI of the\n                Income-tax Act,--(i) the 29th day of September, 2021 shall be the end date\n                of the period during which the time limit specified in, or\n                prescribed or notified under, the Income-tax Act falls for\n                the completion of such action; and(ii) the 30th day of September, 2021 shall be the end date\n                to which the time limit for completion of such action shall\n                stand extended;(ii) the compliance of any action, referred to in clause (b)\n                of sub-section (1) ofsection 3of the said Act, relates to\n                intimation of Aadhaar number to the prescribed authority\n                under sub-section (2) ofsection 139AAof the Income-tax\n                Act, the time-limit for such the compliance of such action\n                shall stand extended to the 30th day of September, 2021;(B) where the specified Act is the Chapter VIII of the\n                Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as\n                theFinance Act) and the completion of any action,\n                referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) ofsection 3of\n                the said Act, relates to sending an intimation under sub-\n                section (1) ofsection 168of the Finance Act, and the time\n                limit for completion of such action expires on the 30 th\n                June, 2021 due to its extension by the said notifications,\n                such time limit shall further stand extended to the 30th day\n                of September, 2021.[Notification No. 74/2021/ F. No. 370142/35/2020-TPL]\n                SHEFALI SINGH, Under Secy., Tax Policy and Legislation\n                Division\n\n\n                Note : The principal notification was published in the\n                Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II,Section 3, Sub-\n                section (ii) vide S.O.No. 4805(E) dated 31 st December,\n                2020 and was last amended vide S.O.1703(E) dated\n                27th April,2021.(emphasis supplied)\n\n\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                       35/71              1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n22              Under Notification No.20 of 2021, the time limit was extendedto 30th April 2021. Under Notification No.38 of 2021, the time limit for\n\nissuing notice underSection 148of the Act was extended to 30th June 2021.23              In background of these facts and statutory provisions, the\n\ncontentions raised in the petitions are :(a) upon enactment of theFinance Act, 2021, the provisions\n\ncontained in the Act pertaining to reassessment of income stood substituted\n\nby new set of provisions and upon such substitution the old provisions\n\nceased to exist. There is no indication, either in express terms or implied, in\n\nthe newly introduced provisions that the legislature desired to retain the old\n\nprovisions for the past period. In such circumstances, any action of issuance\n\nof notice for reassessment, which is taken after 1 st April 2021, must be in\n\naccordance with the amended provisions;(b) insertion of new provisions and substitution of the old\n\nwould have the effect of repealing the old provisions which would cease to\n\nhave any applicability thereafter;(c) the Relaxation Act merely authorised the Government to\n\nextend the time limits contained in the specified Act and that did not\n\ninclude power to issue any explanation or clarification. The subordinate\n\nlegislature must submit to the limits of powers vested in it by the parent Act.By way of explanation, the subordinate legislature cannot revive the\n\nstatutory provisions which had lapsed. The explanations contained in the\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                        36/71              1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nnotifications dated 31st March 2021 and 27th April 2021 are thus ultra vires\n\nthe powers of the subordinate legislation and therefore, unconstitutional;(d) 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 Division Bench of Allahabad High\n\nCourt, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court, Madras High Court and a\n\nsingle Judge of Calcutta High Court have already decided these issues in\n\nfavour of the assessees. Being pan-India legislation in the field of taxation,\n\nthe Court should strive to achieve consistency. The view adopted by these\n\nCourts, should, therefore, be followed by this Court.24              On the other hand, the Revenue has opposed the petitions and\n\ncontended that :(a) the substitution of old provisions for reopening of\n\nassessment would not obliterate the previous set of statutory provisions.They would continue to have effect for the past period, i.e., for assessment\n\nyears upto 31st March 2021. If the notice for reopening of assessment was\n\nissued for any period prior to 1st April 2021, the provisions as they stood at\n\nthe relevant time would apply. In such a case, there was no requirement of\n\nfollowing the procedure laid down underSection 148Aof the Act before\n\nissuing notice underSection 148of the Act;(b) present situation is unprecedented and has arisen on\n\naccount of pandemic caused by COVID-19. Unprecedented situation\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                       37/71             1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nrequired extraordinary measures. The Relaxation Ordinance, 2020 and\n\nRelaxation Act were, therefore, framed giving extension of time limits for\n\ntaking actions and making compliances. These extensions were for the\n\nbenefit of both, actions that had to be taken by the Revenue as well as\n\ncompliances which had to be made by the assessees. The assessees cannot\n\ntake advantage of the unusual circumstances prevailing on account of\n\nCOVID-19. The CBDT, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, has issued necessary\n\nexplanation which merely clarifies which statutory provisions any way\n\nprovide. This explanation makes explicit what is otherwise implicit under\n\nthe Act. The same is well within the power of the Government.25              Two questions, therefore, which come up for our consideration\n\nare :(a) Whether, after    introduction of   new provisions for\n\nreassessment of income by virtue of theFinance Act, 2021 with effect from\n\n1st April 2021, substituting the then existing provisions, would the\n\nsubstituted provisions survive and could be used for issuing notices for\n\nreassessment for the past period?;(b) Whether the explanations contained in the CBDT Circular\n\nNos.20 of 2021 of 31st March 2021 and 38 of 2021 of 27 th April 2021 are\n\nlegal and valid?Gauri Gaekwad\n                                                 38/71                  1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n26                 A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case ofAshok Kumar Agarwal (Supra) has ruled in favour of the assessee and in\n\nparagraphs 64 to 73 held as under :"64. As to the first line of reasoning applied by the learned\n                counsel for the petitioner, as noted above, there can be no\n                exception to the principle - an Act of legislative substitution\n                is a composite act. Thereby, the legislature chooses to put in\n                place another or, replace an existing provision of law. It\n                involves simultaneous omission and re-enactment. By its very\n                nature, once a new provision has been put in place of a pre-\n                existing provision, the earlier provision cannot survive,\n                except for things done or already undertaken to be done or\n                things expressly saved to be done. In absence of any express\n                saving clause and, since no reassessment proceeding had\n                been initiated prior to the Act of legislative substitution, the\n                second aspect of the matter does not require any further\n                examination.65. Therefore, other things apart, undeniably, on 01.04.2021,\n                by virtue of plain/unexcepted effect ofSection 1(2)(a)of the\n                Finance Act, 2021, the provisions ofSections 147,148,149,151(as those provisions existed upto 31.03.2021), stood\n                substituted, along with a new provision enacted by way ofSection 148Aof that Act. In absence of any saving clause, to\n                save the pre-existing (and now substituted) provisions, the\n                revenue authorities could only initiate reassessment\n                proceeding on or after 01.04.2021, in accordance with the\n                substituted law and not the pre-existing laws.66. It is equally true that the Enabling Act that was\n                pre-existing, had been enforced prior to enforcement of theFinance Act, 2021. It confronted the Act as amended byFinance Act, 2021, as it came into existence on 01.04.2021.\n                In the Enabling Act and theFinance Act, 2021, there is\n                absence, both of any express provision in itself or to delegate\n                the function - to save applicability of the provisions ofsections 147,148,149or 151 of the Act, as they existed up\n                to 31.03.2021. Plainly, the Enabling Act is an enactment to\n                extend timelines only. Consequently, it flows from the above -\n                01.04.2021 onwards, all references to issuance of notice\n                contained in the Enabling Act must be read as reference to\n                the substituted provisions only. Equally there is no difficulty\n                in applying the pre- existing provisions to pending\n                proceedings. Looked in that manner, the laws are\n                harmonized.Gauri Gaekwad\n                                                39/71                 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc67. It may also be not forgotten, a reassessment proceeding is\n                not just another proceeding emanating from a simple show\n                cause notice. Both, under the pre- existing law as also under\n                the law enforced from 01.04.2021, that proceeding must\n                arise only upon jurisdiction being validly assumed by the\n                assessing authority. Till such time jurisdiction is validly\n                assumed by assessing authority - evidenced by issuance of\n                the jurisdictional notice underSection 148, no\n                re-assessment proceeding may ever be said to be pending\n                before the assessing authority. The admission of the revenue\n                authorities that all re-assessment notices involved in this\n                batch of writ petitions had been issued after the enforcement\n                date 01.04.2021, is tell-tale and critical. As a fact, no\n                jurisdiction had been assumed by the assessing authority\n                against any of the petitioners, under the unamended law.\n                Hence, no time extension could ever be made under section\n                3(1) of the Enabling Act, read with the Notifications issued\n                thereunder.68. The submission of the learned Additional Solicitor\n                General of India that the provision of Section 3(1) of\n                the Enabling Act gave an overriding effect to that Act and\n                therefore saved the provisions as existed under the\n                unamended law, also cannot be accepted. That saving could\n                arise only if jurisdiction had been validly assumed before the\n                date 01.04.2021. In the first place Section 3(1) of the\n                Enabling Act does not speak of saving any provision of law. It\n                only speaks of saving or protecting certain proceedings from\n                being hit by the rule of limitation. That provision also does\n                not speak of saving any proceeding from any law that may be\n                enacted by the Parliament, in future. For both reasons, the\n                submission advanced by learned Additional Solicitor General\n                of India is unacceptable.69. Even otherwise the word 'notwithstanding' creating the\n                non obstante clause, does not govern the entire scope of\n                Section 3(1) of the Enabling Act. It is confined to and may be\n                employed only with reference to the second part of Section\n                3(1) of the Enabling Act i.e. to protect proceedings already\n                under way. There is nothing in the language of that provision\n                to admit a wider or sweeping application to be given to that\n                clause - to serve a purpose not contemplated under that\n                provision and the enactment, wherein it appears.70. The upshot of the above reasoning is, the Enabling Act\n                only protected certain proceedings that may have become\n                time barred on 20.03.2021, upto the date 30.06.2021.\n                Correspondingly, by delegated legislation incorporated by the\n                Central Government, it may extend that time limit. That time\n                limit alone stood extended upto 30 June, 2021. We also note,\n                the learned Additional Solicitor General of India may not be\n                entirely correct in stating that no extension of time was\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                40/71                  1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                granted beyond 30.06.2021. Vide Notification No. 3814\n                dated 17.09.2021, issued under section 3(1) of the Enabling\n                Act, further extension of time has been granted till\n                31.03.2022. In absence of any specific delegation made, to\n                allow the delegate of the Parliament, to indefinitely extend\n                such limitation, would be to allow the validity of an enacted\n                law i.e. theFinance Act, 2021 to be defeated by a purely\n                colourable exercise of power, by the delegate of the\n                Parliament.71. Here, it may also be clarified, Section 3(1) of the\n                Enabling Act does not itself speak of reassessment\n                proceeding or ofSection 147orSection 148of the Act as it\n                existed prior to 01.04.2021. It only provides a general\n                relaxation of limitation granted on account of general\n                hardship existing upon the spread of pandemic COVID -19.\n                After enforcement of theFinance Act, 2021, it applies to the\n                substituted provisions and not the pre-existing provisions.72. Reference to reassessment proceedings with respect to\n                pre-existing and now substituted provisions ofSections 147and148of the Act has been introduced only by the later\n                Notifications issued under the Act. Therefore, the validity of\n                those provisions is also required to be examined. We have\n                concluded as above, that the provisions ofSections 147,148,148A,149,150and151substituted the old/pre-existing\n                provisions of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2021. We have further\n                concluded, in absence of any proceeding of reassessment\n                having been initiated prior to the date 01.04.2021, it is the\n                amended law alone that would apply. We do not see how the\n                delegate i.e. Central Government or the CBDT could have\n                issued the Notifications, plainly to over reach the principal\n                legislation. Unless harmonized as above, those Notifications\n                would remain invalid.73. Unless specifically enabled under any law and unless that\n                burden had been discharged by the respondents, we are\n                unable to accept the further submission advanced by the\n                learned Additional Solicitor General of India that practicality\n                dictates that the reassessment proceedings be protected.\n                Practicality, if any, may lead to legislation. Once the matter\n                reaches Court, it is the legislation and its language, and the\n                interpretation offered to that language as may primarily be\n                decisive to govern the outcome of the proceeding. To read\n                practicality into enacted law is dangerous. Also, it would\n                involve legislation by the Court, an idea and exercise we\n                carefully tread away from."Gauri Gaekwad\n                                                41/71                   1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n27                 A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Mon MohanKohli (Supra), in paragraphs 42 to 48, while deciding the issue in favour of\n\nthe assessee, observed as under :"42. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court\n                is of the view that by virtue ofSection 1(2)(a) of theFinance\n                Act, 2021, the substitutedSections 147,148,149and151of\n                the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to reopening of\n                assessments came into force on 1st April, 2021. The\n                significance of the expression 'shall' inSection 1(2)(a) of\n                theFinance Act, 2021 cannot be lost sight of. This is in\n                contrast to the language underSection 1(2)(b)which states\n                thatSections 108to123of the Finance Act, 2021 shall come\n                into force on such date, as the Central Government may, by\n                Notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. The\n                Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2021, too, clarifies that itsSections 2to88which included the substitutedSections 147to151of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will take effect from\n                1st April, 2021. There is also no power with the\n                Executive/Respondents/Revenue to defer/postpone the\n                implementation ofSections 2to88of the Finance Act, 2021\n                which includes the substitutedSections 147to151of the\n                Income Tax Act, 1961.43. It is settled law that the law prevailing on the date of\n                issuance of the notice underSection 148has to be applied.\n                [See: Foramer Vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 436 (All.), affirmed by\n                the Supreme Court in (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC), Varkey\n                Jacob Co. Vs. CIT and Anr. (2002) 257 ITR 231 (Ker), Smt.\n                N. Illamathy vs. ITO(2020) 275 taxman 25/195 CTR 543\n                (Mad)(HC), RK Upadhyay v Shanabhai, (1987) 166 ITR 163\n                (SC); CIT v Rameshwar Prasad, (1991) 188 ITR 291 (All\n                HC); Dr. Onkar Dutt Sharma v CIT, (1967) 65ITR 359 (All\n                HC)].44. This Court is of the view that had the intention of the\n                Legislature been to keep the erstwhile provisions alive, it\n                would have introduced the new provisions with effect from\n                1st July, 2021, which has not been done. Accordingly, the\n                notices relating to any assessment year issued underSection\n                148on or after 1st April, 2021 have to comply with the\n                provisions ofSections 147,148,148A,149and151of the\n                Income Tax Act, 1961 as specifically substituted by theFinance Act, 2021 with effect from 1st April, 2021.45. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that as the\n                Legislature has permitted re-assessment to be made in this\n                manner only, it can be done in this manner, or not at all.Gauri Gaekwad\n                                                42/71                  1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                SECTION 3(1) OF RELAXATION ACT EMPOWERS THE\n                GOVERNMENT/EXECUTIVE TO EXTEND ONLY THE TIME\n                LINES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE GOVERNMENT/EXECUTIVE\n                CAN NEITHER MAKE OR CHANGE LAW OF THE LAND NOR\n                CAN IT IMPEDE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LAW MADE BY\n                THE PARLIAMENT.46. Upon perusal of Section 3(1) of Relaxation Act,\n                2020, this Court is of the view that it extends only the time\n                lines. Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020 stipulates that\n                where, any time limit has been stipulated in a specified Act\n                which falls between the period 20th day of March, 2020 and\n                31st day of December, 2020 for the completion or compliance\n                of such action as issuance of any notice under the\n                provisions of the specified Acts and where completion or\n                compliance of such action has not been made within such\n                time, then the time limit for completion or compliance of\n                such action shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the\n                specified Acts, stand extended. It is important to bear in mind\n                that Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020 does not\n                empower the Central Government to postpone the\n                applicability of any provision which has been enacted from a\n                particular date. There is a difference between extension of\n                time of an action which is getting time barred and\n                applicability of a provision which has been enacted and\n                notified by the Legislature. Relaxation Act, 2020 nowhere\n                delegates power to the Central Government to postpone the\n                date of applicability of a new law enacted by the Legislature.\n                Relaxation Act, 2020 also does not put any embargo on the\n                power of the Legislature to legislate.47. Also, the impugned Explanations in the Notifications\n                dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 are beyond the\n                power delegated to the Government, as the Relaxation Act\n                does not give power to Government to extend the erstwhileSections 147to151beyond 31st March, 2021 and/or defer\n                the operation of substituted provisions enacted by theFinance Act, 2021. Accordingly, the provisions ofSection\n                148Ahad to be complied with before issuing notices underSection 147of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the submission\n                of the respondents- Revenue based on the judgment passed\n                by Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja Vs. UOI\n                (supra) does not find favour with this Court. After all, it is\n                settled law that Executive cannot make or change law of the\n                land without specific Authority from Parliament to do so.48. Consequently, the Relaxation Act, 2020 and Notifications\n                issued thereunder can only change the time-lines applicable\n                to the issuance of aSection 148notice, but they cannot\n                change the statutory provisions applicable thereto which are\n                required to be strictly complied with. Further, just as the\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                  43/71                  1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                Executive cannot legislate, it cannot impede                  the\n                implementation of law made by the Legislature."28                  The Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja (Supra)\n\nin paragraphs 31 to 37, 39 and 40 has held as under :31. We may now attempt to answer these questions ourselves\n                with the aid of statutory provisions and law laid down in\n                various decisions cited before us we may summarise certain\n                principles applicable in the field of taxation and which\n                principles would be invoked in the course of the judgment :-(i) A taxing statute must be interpreted strictly. Equity has no\n                place in taxation nor while interpreting taxing statute\n                intendment would have any place.In case of State of W.B. Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. And Ors.,\n                (2004) 10 SCC 201, referring toArticle 265of the\n                Constitution which provides that no tax shall be levied or\n                collected except by authority of law, it was observed that in\n                interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are\n                entirely out of place. Taxing statutes cannot be interpreted by\n                any presumption or assumption. A taxing statute has to be\n                interpreted in light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot\n                imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import\n                provisions in the statute so as to supply any deficiency. Before\n                taxing any person it must be shown that he falls within the\n                ambit of charging section by clear words used in the section\n                and if the words are ambiguous and open to two\n                interpretations, the benefit of interpretation is given to the\n                subject. There is nothing unjust in the tax payer escaping if\n                the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the\n                legislature's failure to express itself clearly.\n                \\n\n\n\n\n                A Constitution Bench in the case of Commissioner of Customs\n                (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar And Company And Ors.,\n                (2018) 9 SCC 1, had reiterated these principles. It was a case\n                where on a reference to the Larger Bench the Supreme Court\n                was considering a question whether an ambiguity in a tax\n                exemption provision or notification, the same must be\n                interpreted so as to favour the assessee. Making a clear\n                distinction between a charging provision of a taxing statute\n                and exemption notification which waives a tax or a levy\n                normally imposed, the Supreme Court observed as under :-"14. We may, here itself notice that the distinction in\n                    interpreting a taxing provision (charging provision)\n                    and in the matter of interpretation of exemption (98\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                 44/71                   1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                   of 113) [CW-969/2022] notification is too obvious\n                   to require any elaboration. Nonetheless, in a\n                   nutshell, we may mention that, as observed in\n                   Surendra Cotton Oil Mills Case, in the matter of\n                   interpretation of charging Section of a taxation\n                   statute, strict Rule of interpretation is mandatory\n                   and if there are two views possible in the matter of\n                   interpretation of a charging section, the one\n                   favourable to the Assessee need to be applied. There\n                   is, however, confusion in the matter of interpretation\n                   of exemption notification published under taxation\n                   statutes and in this area also, the decisions are\n                   galore.24. In construing penal statutes and taxation\n                   statutes, the Court has to apply strict Rule of\n                   interpretation. The penal statute which tends to\n                   deprive a person of right to life and liberty has to be\n                   given strict interpretation or else many innocent\n                   might become victims of discretionary decision\n                   making. Insofar as taxation statutes are concerned,Article 265of the Constitution prohibits the State\n                   from extracting tax from the citizens without\n                   authority of law. It is axiomatic that taxation statute\n                   has to be interpreted strictly because the State\n                   cannot at their whims and fancies burden the\n                   citizens without authority of law. In other words,\n                   when the competent Legislature mandates taxing\n                   certain    persons/certain     objects    in    certain\n                   circumstances, it cannot be expanded/interpreted to\n                   include those, which were not intended by the\n                   legislature."(ii) Being the central legislation of pan-India effect and\n                operating in the field of taxation, the view of another High\n                Court would have considerable persuasive value. In other\n                words, the High Court would have due regard to the view\n                already expressed by another High Court and to the possible\n                extent prefer consistency of views across the country over\n                discord. Unless the view expressed by another High Court is\n                plainly unacceptable to the Court, the High Court would lean\n                in favour of the well considered view already expressed by\n                another Court.(iii) The speech made the Finance Minister on the floor of the\n                House explaining the budgetary provisions would provide a\n                useful tool in interpreting the taxing provisions particularly in\n                case (99 of 113) [CW-969/2022] the dispute about their\n                interpretation arises. When the Finance Minister who has\n                piloted the budget in her speech explains the provisions\n                contained in the Finance Bill and elaborates on the mischief\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                45/71                   1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                which prevails and which is sought to be cured by substituting\n                the existing statutory provisions, the explanation rendered by\n                the Finance Minister has considerable importance in the\n                context of correct interpretation of such provisions.In case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust Vs.\n                Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (1975) 101 ITR 234\n                it was observed as under :-"It is true that it is dangerous and may be misleading to\n                  gather the meaning of the words used in an enactment\n                  merely from what was said by any speaker in the\n                  course of a debate in Parliament on the subject. Such a\n                  speech cannot be used to defeat or detract from a\n                  meaning which clearly emerges from a consideration of\n                  the enacting words actually used. But, in the case\n                  before us, the real meaning and purpose of the words\n                  used cannot be understood at all satisfactorily without\n                  referring to the past history of legislation on the subject\n                  and the speech of the mover of the amendment who\n                  was, undoubtedly, in the best position to explain what\n                  defect in the law the amendment had sought to\n                  remove. It was not just the speech of any member in\n                  Parliament. It was the considered statement of the\n                  Finance Minister who was proposing the amendment\n                  for a particular reason which he clearly indicated. If the\n                  reason given by him only elucidates what is also\n                  deducible from the words used in the amended\n                  provision, we do not see why we should refuse to take\n                  it into consideration as an aid to a correct\n                  interpretation. It harmonises with and clarifies the real\n                  intent of the words used. Must we, in such\n                  circumstances, ignore it?"In case of K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer, reported in\n                (1981) 131 ITR 597 it was observed as under :-"Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members\n                  of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill\n                  for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are\n                  inadmissible for the purpose of (100 of 113) [CW-\n                  969/2022] interpreting the statutory provision but the\n                  speech made by the Mover of the Bill explaining the\n                  reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be\n                  referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief\n                  sought to be remedied by the legislation and the object\n                  and purpose for which the legislation is enacted. This is\n                  in accord with the recent trend in juristic thought not\n                  only in Western countries but also in India that\n                  interpretation of a statute being an exercise in the\n                  ascertainment of meaning, everything which is logically\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                46/71                   1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                  relevant should be admissible. In fact there are at least\n                  three decisions of this Court, one inSole Trustee Loka\n                  Shikshana Trust v. CIT: [1975]101 ITR 234, the other inIndian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT: [1975]101 ITR\n                  796 and the third inAdditional CIT v. Surat Art Silk\n                  Cloth Manufacturers Association[1980] 121 ITR\n                  1/[1980] 2 Taxman 501, where the speech made by the\n                  Finance Minister while introducing the exclusionary\n                  clause in Section 2 Clause (15) of the Act was relied\n                  upon by the Court for the purpose of ascertaining what\n                  was the reason for introducing that clause. The speech\n                  made by the Finance Minister while moving the\n                  amendment introducing Sub-section (2) clearly states\n                  what were the circumstances in which Sub-section (2)\n                  came to be passed, what was the mischief for whichSection 52as it then stood did not provide and which\n                  was sought to be remedied by the enactment of Sub-\n                  section (2) and why the enactment of Sub-section (2)\n                  was found necessary. It is apparent from the speech of\n                  the Finance Minister that Sub-section(2) was enacted\n                  for the purpose of reaching those cases where there was\n                  under-statement of consideration in respect of the\n                  transfer or to put it differently, the actual consideration\n                  received for the transfer was 'considerably more' than\n                  that declared or shown by the assessee, but which were\n                  not covered by Sub- section (1) because the transferee\n                  was not directly or indirectly connected with the\n                  assessee. The object and purpose of Sub-section (2), as\n                  explicated from the speech of the Finance Minister, was\n                  not to strike at honest and bonafide transactions where\n                  the consideration for the transfer was correctly\n                  disclosed by the assessee but to bring within the net of\n                  taxation those transactions where the consideration in\n                  respect of the transfer was shown at a lesser figure than\n                  that actually received by the assessee, so that they do\n                  not escape the charge of tax on capital gains by under-\n                  statement of the consideration. This was real object and\n                  purpose of the enactment of Sub-section (2) and the\n                  interpretation of this sub-section must fall in line with\n                  the advancement of that object and purpose. We must\n                  therefore accept as the underlying assumption of Sub-\n                  section (2) that there is under-statement of\n                  consideration in respect of the transfer and          Sub-section     (2) applies only         where     the actual\n                  consideration received by the assessee is not disclosed\n                  and the consideration declared in respect of the transfer\n                  is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received."(iv) It is well accepted that reopening a completed assessment\n                causes great hardship to the assessee and also brings\n                uncertainty. In a judgment in case of Gujarat Power\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                47/71                  1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,\n                reported in [2013] 350 ITR 266(Guj), a Division Bench of\n                Gujarat High Court had observed as under :-"41. The powers underSection 147of the Act are\n                  special powers and peculiar in nature where a quasi-\n                  judicial order previously passed after full hearing and\n                  which has otherwise become final is subject to\n                  reopening on certain grounds. Ordinarily, a judicial or\n                  quasi-judicial order is subject to appeal, revision or\n                  even review if statute so permits but not liable to be\n                  reopened by the same authority. Such powers are\n                  vested by the Legislature presumably in view of the\n                  highly complex nature of assessment proceedings\n                  involving a large number of assessees concerning\n                  multiple questions of claims, deductions and\n                  exemptions, which assessments have to be completed\n                  in a time frame. To protect the interests of the Revenue,\n                  therefore, such special provisions are made undersection 147of the Act. However, it must be appreciated\n                  that an assessment previously framed after scrutiny\n                  when reopened, results into considerable hardship to\n                  the assessee. The assessment gets reopened not only\n                  qua those grounds which are recorded in the reasons,\n                  but also with respect to the entire original assessment,\n                  of course at the hands of the Revenue. This obviously\n                  would lead to considerable hardship and uncertainty. It\n                  is precisely for this reason that even while recognizing\n                  such powers, in special requirements of the statute,\n                  certain safeguards are provided by the statute which\n                  are zealously guarded by the courts. Interpreting such\n                  statutory provisions courts upon courts have held that\n                  an assessment previously framed cannot be reopened\n                  on a mere change of opinion. It is stated that the power\n                  to reopening cannot be equated with review."32. The fact that under theFinance Act, 2021 the provisions\n                for reassessment were substituted is beyond doubt. The notes\n                on clauses for making relevant amendments clearly at every\n                stage provide that the Bill proposes to substitute the existing\n                provisions. For example it is stated that clause 35 seeks to\n                amendSection 147of the Act relating to income escaping\n                assessment. Likewise under clause 36Section 148is proposed\n                to be substituted so as to provide that before making the\n                assessment, reassessment or recomputation underSection\n                147and subject to the provisions of Section 148A the\n                Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice along\n                with a copy of order passed under clause (d) ofSection 148.The Finance Actitself also refers to the substitution ofSections 147,148and149etc. along side insertion ofSection\n                148Awhich as noted was being introduced for the first time.Gauri Gaekwad\n                                                 48/71                   1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.docIn the budged speech that the Finance Minister gave on the\n                floor of the House it was explained that there was a proposal\n                to reduce the time limit for reopening of the assessments. In\n                the memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance\n                Bill, 2021, it was provided that the Bill proposes a completely\n                new procedure for assessment of cases of reopening. It was\n                pointed out that newSection 148Aproposes issuance of\n                notice and passing of the order by the Assessing Officer. It was\n                further provided as under :-"Another restriction has been provided that the notice\n                   undersection 148of the Act cannot be issued at any\n                   time in a case for the relevant assessment year\n                   beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if such\n                   notice could not have been issued at that time on\n                   account of being beyond the time limit prescribed under\n                   the provisions of clause (b), as they stood immediately\n                   before the proposed amendment.Since the assessment or reassessment or re-computation in search or requisition cases (where such\n                   (103 of 113) [CW-969/2022] search or requisition is\n                   initiated or made on or before 31st March 2021) are to\n                   be carried out as per the provision ofsection 153A,153B,153Cand153Dof the Act, the aforesaid time\n                   limitation shall not apply to such cases."33. In case of Government of India and Others Vs. Indian\n                Tobacco Association, reported in (2005) 7 SCC 396, the\n                Supreme Court considered the effect of substitution of a\n                statutory provision by new one. It was observed as under :-"15. The word "substitute" ordinarily would mean "to\n                   put (one) in place of another"; or "to replace". In Black's\n                   Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, at page 1281, the word\n                   "substitute" has been defined to mean "to put in the\n                   place of another person or thing". or "to exchange". In\n                   Collins English Dictionary, the word "substitute" has\n                   been defined to mean "to serve or cause to serve in\n                   place of another person or thing"; "to replace (an atom\n                   or group in a molecule) with (another atom or group)";\n                   or "a person or thing that serves in place of another,\n                   such as a player in a game who takes the place of an\n                   injured colleague".25.In Zile Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. wherein\n                   the effect of an amendment in the Haryana Municipal\n                   Act, 1973 by Act No. 15 of 1994 whereby the word\n                   "after" was substituted by the word "upto" fell for\n                   consideration; wherein Lahoti, C.J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench held the said amendment to have a\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                             49/71                   1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.docretrospective effect being declaratory in nature as\n                thereby obvious absurdity occurring in the first\n                amendment and bring the same in conformity with\n                what the legislature really intended to provide was\n                removed, stating: (SCC p. 12 paras 23-25)\n\n                  "23. The text ofSection 2of the Second\n                  Amendment Act provides for the word ""upto""being substituted for the word "after". What is the\n                  meaning and effect of the expression employed\n                  therein - "shall be substituted"?24. The substitution of one text for the other pre-\n                  existing text is one of the known and well-recognised practices employed in legislative\n                  drafting. 'Substitution' has to be distinguished\n                  from 'supersession' or a mere repeal of an existing\n                  provision.25. Substitution of a provision results in repeal of\n                  the earlier provision and its (104 of 113) [CW-\n                  969/2022] replacement by the new provision\n                  (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation, ibid,\n                  p.565). If any authority is needed in support of\n                  the proposition, it is to be found in West U.P.Sugar Mills Assn. v. State of U.P., State of\n                  Rajasthanv.Mangilal Pindwal, Koteswar Vittal\n                  Kamath v. K. Rangappa BaligaandCo. and\n                  A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar v. S. Michael. In\n                  West U.P. Sugar Mills Association case a three-\n                  Judges Bench of this Court held that the State\n                  Government by substituting the new rule in place\n                  of the old one never intended to keep alive the old\n                  rule. Having regard to the totality of the\n                  circumstances centering around the issue the\n                  Court held that the substitution had the effect of\n                  just deleting the old rule and making the new rule\n                  operative. In Mangilal Pindwal case this Court\n                  upheld the legislative practice of an amendment\n                  by substitution being incorporated in the text of a\n                  statute which had ceased to exist and held that\n                  the substitution would have the effect of\n                  amending the operation of law during the period\n                  in which it was in force. In Koteswar case a three-\n                  Judge Bench of this Court emphasized the\n                  distinction between 'supersession' of a rule arid\n                  'substitution' of a rule and held that the process of\n                  substitution consists of two steps : first, the old\n                  rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new\n                  rule is brought into existence in its place."Gauri Gaekwad\n                                                50/71                    1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc34. In case of State of M.P. Vs. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd.\n                and Others, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 389, the Supreme\n                Court held as under :-"13. There is presumption against a repeal by\n                  implication; and the reason of this rule is based on the\n                  theory that the Legislature while enacting a law has a\n                  complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same\n                  subject matter, and therefore, when it does not provide\n                  a repealing provisions, the intention is clear not to\n                  repeal the existing legislation. (See:Municipal Council,\n                  Palai v. T.J. Joseph,Northern India Caterers (Private)\n                  Ltd. and Anr. v. State of PunjabandAnr., Municipal\n                  Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv ShankerandRatan Lal\n                  Adukia and Anr. v. Union of India.) When the new Act\n                  contains a repealing section mentioning the Acts which\n                  it expressly repeals, the presumption (105 of 113) [CW-\n                  969/2022] against implied repeal of other laws is\n                  further strengthened on the principle expressio unius\n                  (persone vel rei) est exclusio alterius. (The express\n                  intention of one person or thing is the exclusion of\n                  another), as illuminatingly stated in Garnett v. Bradley.\n                  The continuance of existing legislation, in the absence\n                  of an express provision of repeal by implication lies on\n                  the party asserting the same. The presumption is,\n                  however, rebutted and a repeal is inferred by necessary\n                  implication when the provisions of the later Act are so\n                  inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the\n                  earlier Act and that the two cannot stand together. But,\n                  if the two can be read together and some application\n                  can be made of the words in the earlier Act, a repeal\n                  will not be inferred. (See: A.G. v. Moore, Ratan Lal case\n                  andR.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka)"35. In case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mangilal Pindwal,\n                reported in (1996) 5 SCC 60, it was observed that\n                substitution of a provision results in repeal of the old\n                provision and replacement by new provision. By repeal the\n                provisions repealed ceased to exist with effect from the date\n                of repeal but operation of the provision as it stood prior to\n                repeal is not affected. It was held as under :-"9. As pointed out by this Court, the process of a\n                  substitution of statutory provision consists of two Steps\n                  first; the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the\n                  new rule is brought into existence in its place. [see\n                  Koteshwar Vittal Kamath v, K. Rangappa & Co., SCR at\n                  p. 48] In other words, the substitution of a provision\n                  results in repeal of the earlier provision and its\n                  replacement by the new provision. As regards repeal\n                  of a statute the law is thus stated in Sutherland on\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                51/71                   1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                  Statutory Construction :"The effect of the repeal of a statute where neither a\n                  saving clause nor a general saving statute exists to\n                  prescribed the governing rule for the effect of the\n                  repeal, is to destroy the effectiveness of the repealed act\n                  in futuro and to divest the right to proceed under the\n                  statute, which, except as to proceedings past and closed,\n                  is considered as if it had never existed." [Vol. I, para\n                  2042, pp.522-523]10. Similarly in Crawford's Interpretation of Laws it has\n                  been said : "Effect of Repeal, Generally. - In the (106 of113) [CW-969/2022] first place, an outright repeal will\n                  destroy the effectiveness of the repealed act in futuro\n                  and operate to destroy inchoate rights dependent on it,\n                  as a general rule. In many cases, however, where\n                  statutes are repealed, they continue to be the law of the\n                  period during which they were in force with reference\n                  to numerous matters." [pp.640-641]11. The observations of Lord Tenterden and Tindal, C.J.\n                  referred in the abovementioned passages in Craies on\n                  Statute Law also indicate that the principle that on\n                  repeal a statute is obliterated is subject to the exception\n                  that it exists in respect of transactions past and closed.\n                  To the same effect is the Jaw laid down by this Court.\n                  [See :Qudrat Ullah v. Municipal Board. Bareilly, SCR at\n                  p. 539]12. This means that as a result of repeal of a statute the\n                  statute as repealed ceases to exist with effect from the\n                  date of such repeal but the repeal does not affect the\n                  previous operation of the law which has been repealed\n                  during the period it was operative prior to the date of\n                  such repeal.........."36. It can thus be seen that original provisions upon their\n                substitution stood repealed for all purposes and had no\n                existence after introduction of the substituting provisions. We\n                may refer toSection 6of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which\n                provides inter- alia that where theState ActorCentral Actor\n                regulation repeals any enactment then unless a different\n                intention appears repeal shall not revive anything not in force\n                or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect or\n                affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or\n                anything duly done or suffered thereunder. Under the\n                circumstances after substitution unless there is any intention\n                discernible in the scheme of statute either pre-existing or\n                newly introduced, the substituted provisions would not\n                survive.Gauri Gaekwad\n                                                52/71                  1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc37. In this context we have perused the provisions of\n                reassessment contained in theFinance Act, 2021. We have\n                noticed earlier the major departure that the new scheme of\n                reassessment (107 of 113) [CW-969/2022] has made under\n                these provisions. The time limits for issuing notice for\n                reassessment have been changed. The concept of income\n                chargeable to tax escaping assessment on account of failure\n                on the part of the assessee to disclose truly or fully all\n                material facts is no longer relevant. Elaborate provisions are\n                made underSection 148Aof the Act enabling the Assessing\n                Officer to make enquiry with respect to material suggesting\n                that income has escaped assessment, issuance of notice to the\n                assessee calling upon why notice underSection 148should\n                not be issued and passing an order considering the material\n                available on record including response of the assessee if made\n                while deciding whether the case is fit for issuing notice underSection 148. There is absolutely no indication in all these\n                provisions which would suggest that the legislature intended\n                that the new scheme of reopening of assessments would be\n                applicable only to the period post 01.04.2021. In absence of\n                any such indication all notices which were issued after\n                01.04.2021 had to be in accordance with such provisions. To\n                reiterate, we find no indication whatsoever in the scheme of\n                statutory provisions suggesting that the past provisions would\n                continue to apply even after the substitution for the\n                assessment periods prior to substitution. In fact there are\n                strong indications to the contrary. We may recall, that time\n                limits for issuing notice underSection 148of the Act have\n                been modified under substitutedSection 149. Clause (a) of\n                sub-section (1) ofSection 149reduces such period to three\n                years instead of originally prevailing four years under normal\n                circumstances. Clause (b) extends the upper limit of six years\n                previously prevailing to ten years in cases where income\n                chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to\n                or is likely to amount (108 of 113) [CW-969/2022] to 50 lacs\n                or more. Sub-section (1) ofSection 149thus contracts as well\n                as expands the time limit for issuing notice underSection 148depending on the question whether the case falls under clause(a) or clause (b). In this context the first proviso toSection\n                149(1)provides that no notice underSection 148shall be\n                issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year\n                beginning on or before 01.04.2021 if such notice could not\n                have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the\n                time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-\n                section (1) ofSection 149as they stood immediately before\n                the commencement of theFinance Act, 2021. As per this\n                proviso thus no notice underSection 148would be issued for\n                the past assessment years by resorting to the larger period of\n                limitation prescribed in newly substituted clause (b) ofSection 149(1). This would indicate that the notice that\n                would be issued after 01.04.2021 would be in terms of the\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                53/71                   1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                substitutedSection 149(1)but without breaching the upper\n                time limit provided in the originalSection 149(1)which stood\n                substituted. This aspect has also been highlighted in the\n                memorandum explaining the proposed provisions in the\n                Finance Bill. If according to the revenue for past period\n                provisions ofsection 149before amendment were applicable,\n                this first proviso tosection 149(1)was wholly unnecessary.\n                Looked from both angles, namely, no indication of surviving\n                the past provisions after the substitution and in fact an active\n                indication to the contrary, inescapable conclusion that we\n                must arrive at is that for any action of issuance of notice\n                underSection 148after 01.04.2021 the newly introduced\n                provisions under theFinance Act, 2021 would apply. Mere\n                extension of time limits for issuing notice undersection 148would not change this position that obtains in law. Under no\n                circumstances the extended period available in clause (b) of\n                sub-section (1) ofSection 149which we may recall now\n                stands at 10 years instead of 6 years previously available with\n                the revenue, can be pressed in service for reopening\n                assessments for the past period. This flows from the plain\n                meaning of the first proviso to sub-section (1) ofSection 149.\n                In plain terms a notice which had become time barred prior to\n                01.04.2021 as per the then prevailing provisions, would not\n                be revived by virtue of the application ofSection 149(1)(b)effective from 01.04.2021. All the notices issued in the\n                present cases are after 01.04.2021 and have been issued\n                without following the procedure contained inSection 148Aof\n                the Act and are therefore invalid.38. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx39. It is well settled that there is presumption of\n                constitutionality of a statute (refer to the Constitution Bench\n                judgment in case of The State of Jammu & Kashmir, Vs.\n                Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., reported in AIR 1974 SC 1). The\n                said principle of presumption of constitutionality also applies\n                to piece of delegated legislation. In case of St. Johns Teachers\n                Training Institute Vs. Regional Director, National Council For\n                Teachers Education and Another, reported in (2003) 3 SCC\n                321, it was observed that it is well settled in considering the\n                vires of subordinate legislation one should start with the\n                presumption that it is intra vires and if it is open to two\n                constructions, one of which would make it valid and other\n                invalid, the courts must adopt that construction which makes\n                it valid. However it is equally well (110 of 113) [CW-\n                969/2022] settled that the subordinate legislation does not\n                enjoy same level of immunity as the law framed by the\n                Parliament or the State Legislature. The law framed by the\n                Parliament or the State Legislature can be challenged only on\n                the grounds of being beyond the legislative competence or\n                being contrary to the fundamental rights or any other\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                54/71                   1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                constitutional provisions. Third ground of challenge which is\n                now recognized in the judgment in case of Shayara Bano Vs\n                Union of India reported in 2017 9 SCC 1 is of legislation\n                being manifestly arbitrary. A subordinate legislation can be\n                challenged on all these grounds as well as on the grounds that\n                it does not conform to the statute under which it is made or\n                that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or it is\n                contrary to some of the statutes applicable on the subject\n                matter. In case of J.K. Industries Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of\n                India and Ors., reported in (2007) 13 SCC 673, it was\n                observed as under :-"63. At the outset, we may state that on account of\n                  globalization and socio-economic problems (including\n                  income disparities in our economy) the power of\n                  Delegation has become a constituent element of\n                  legislative power as a whole. However, as held in the\n                  case ofIndian Express Newspaper v. Union of Indiareported in (1985) 1 SCC 641 at page 689, subordinate\n                  legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity\n                  which is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent\n                  Legislature. Subordinate legislation may be questioned\n                  on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is\n                  questioned. In addition, it may also be questioned on\n                  the ground that it does not conform to the statute under\n                  which it is made. It may further be questioned on the\n                  ground that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the\n                  Act or that it is contrary to some other statute applicable\n                  on the same subject matter. Therefore, it has to yield to\n                  plenary legislation. It can also be questioned on the\n                  ground that it is manifestly arbitrary and unjust. That,\n                  any inquiry into its vires must be confined to the\n                  grounds on which plenary legislation may be\n                  questioned, to the grounds that it is contrary to the\n                  statute under which it is made, to the grounds that it is\n                  contrary to other statutory provisions or on the ground\n                  that it is (111 of 113) [CW-969/2022] so patently\n                  arbitrary that it cannot be said to be inconformity with\n                  the statute. It can also be challenged on the ground that\n                  it violatesArticle 14of the Constitution."40. With this background we may revert to the Relaxation\n                Act, 2020 and the two notifications issued by the CBDT. We\n                may recall, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the\n                Relaxation Act, 2020 while extending the time limits for\n                taking action and making compliances in the specified Acts\n                upto 31.12.2020 the power was given to the Central\n                Government to extend the time further by issuing a\n                notification. This was the only power vested in the Central\n                Government. As a piece of delegated legislation the\n                notifications issued in exercise of such powers, had to be\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                55/71                   1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n                within the confines of such powers. In plain terms under sub-\n                section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020 the\n                Government of India was authorized to extend the time limits\n                by issuing notifications in this regard. Issuing any explanation\n                touching the provisions of theIncome Tax Actwas not part of\n                this delegation at all. The CBDT while issuing the notifications\n                dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 when introduced an\n                explanation which provided by way of clarification that for\n                the purposes of issuance of notice underSection 148as per\n                the time limits specified inSection 149or 151, the provisions\n                as they stood as on 31.03.2021 before commencement of theFinance Act, 2021 shall apply, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction\n                as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could\n                not have travelled beyond the powers vested in the\n                Government of India by the parent Act. Even otherwise it is\n                extremely doubtful whether the explanation in the guise of\n                clarification can change the very basis of the statutory\n                provisions. If the plain meaning of the statutory provision and\n                its (112 of 113) [CW-969/2022] interpretation is clear, by\n                adopting a position different in an explanation and describing\n                it to be clarificatory, the subordinate legislature cannot be\n                permitted to amend the provisions of the parent Act.\n                Accordingly, these explanations are unconstitutional and\n                declared as invalid.29                 At the outset, we had made it clear to Mr. Anil Singh, learned\n\nASG that we were inclined to go along with the view expressed by the three\n\nDivision Benches of Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court and Delhi\n\nHigh Court. During the hearing our attention was invited to the judgment of\n\nthe Division Bench of Madras High Court in Vellore Institute of Technology\n\n(Supra). We expressed that we were inclined to take a similar view as\n\nexpressed by all the Division Benches and independently also we hold the\n\nsame view. We also indicated to the learned ASG that we were unable to\n\npersuade ourselves to accept the analysis of the learned Single Judge of the\n\nChhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (Supra).Gauri Gaekwad\n                                          56/71              1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n30                We asked Mr. Anil Singh, learned ASG if he has anything moreto argue apart from the submissions of Revenue already recorded in these\n\njudgments of the four Division Benches. Mr. Anil Singh, learned ASG\n\nanswered in affirmative.31                Before we proceed further in detail with the submissions of the\n\nlearned ASG, Mr. Mistri and Mr. Pardiwalla, we would note the compact\n\nsubmissions made by Mr. Chatterji and Mr. Andhyarujina :(a) Mr. Chatterji, inter alia, emphasized that once legislature\n\nhas exercised its powers of legislation by enactingFinance Act, 2021, then\n\nany action like issuance of impugned notifications contrary to said\n\nlegislation taken by any other agency/wing of the Government is bad in law\n\nas the same would fall foul of the doctrine of occupied filed as held by the\n\nApex Court in A.B. Kirshna and Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka and Ors 10.Mr. Chatterji submitted that no authority was vested in Government to issue\n\nthe impugned notifications so as to disturb/intrude into the field occupied\n\nby the legislature.(b) Mr. Andhyarujina kept his submissions brief as others were\n\nalready covering everything and submitted that essential legislative\n\nfunctions and extension of limitation period cannot be delegated and if\n\nlimitation period is altered by a subordinate authority, then the delegation is\n\nexcessive and the doctrine of ultra vires can be invoked which envisages that10. AIR 1988 SC 1050\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                      57/71               1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\na subordinate authority can exercise only so much power as is conferred to\n\nit under the law. Mr. Andhyarujina also submitted that since theFinance Act,\n\n2021 is the latter Act in the instant case, the general rule of law states that\n\nwhen there is a conflict between two statues, the one that is more recent\n\nprevails and in this case, since theFinance Actwas more recent compared to\n\nthe Relaxation Act, the provisions ofFinance Actwould prevail over the\n\nprovisions made in the Relaxation Act. Therefore, as the relaxation and\n\nextension of the period of limitation in respect of issuing reopening notices\n\ncan only be a function or a power conferred only to the legislation and not a\n\nsubordinate authority, the two notifications extending the period of\n\nlimitation are ultra vires and bad in law and vitiated in law since the\n\nauthority to extend the period of limitation did not vest with the authority at\n\nall.Both Mr. Chatterji and Mr. Andhyarujina supported the\n\nsubmissions of Mr. Mistri and Mr. Pardiwalla.32              Now reverting to the submissions of learned ASG, during the\n\ncourse of hearing, learned ASG tendered a synopsis of submissions spread in\n\n39 paragraphs. Learned ASG stated that paragraphs 1 to 15 contained\n\nadditional arguments of respondents other than those urged before and\n\nnegated by the various High Courts and paragraphs 16 to 39 deal with\n\nissues already considered and dealt with by various High Courts and he\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                        58/71              1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nreiterated and adopted the stand taken by the Revenue before those Courts.Revenue's additional arguments, as set out in the synopsis, are\n\nas under :A. The Notifications do not result in creating an overlap in\n\nstatutory schemes and there is no question of the Executive seeking to apply\n\nprovisions of law after they have been substituted/repealed by Parliament.Relaxation Act applies only to actions to be taken between 20 th March 2020\n\nand 31st March 2021, a date before theFinance Act, 2021 came into force.Thus, Relaxation Act and the Notifications would apply only in respect of\n\nmatters where the time fell due for any act prior toFinance Act, 2021\n\ncoming into force, i.e., prior to 31 st March 2021. However, Relaxation Act\n\npermits the action to be taken in such cases within certain extended\n\ntimelines owing to the pandemic.B. The use of the word "such action" in Section 3(1) of the\n\nRelaxation Act reveals the legislative intent that it is the very same "action"which is permitted to be complied with within the extended deadline. As a\n\nsequitur, all legal conditions precedent, pre-requisites, limitations and\n\nprocedural norms as applicable on the original date on which "such action"was required to be completed/complied/fell due under the Act, would apply,\n\neven though "such action" is being taken/complied within the extended time\n\nperiod provided for under the Relaxation Act and the Notifications\n\nthereunder. Accordingly, notices underSection 148of the Act will "relate\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                        59/71                1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nback" and be governed by the previous unamended law. This interpretation\n\nis apparent from the object of the Relaxation Act, i.e., " In view of the spread\n\nof pandemic Covid-19 across many countries of the world including India,\n\ncausing immense loss to the lives of people, it had become imperative to\n\nrelax certain provisions, including extension of time-limit " and the plain\n\nlanguage of Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act.C. It is to be inferred that Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act\n\nrequires that extended time limits for issue of, inter alia,Section 148notices\n\nwould also mean/require that the conditions for issue ofSection 148notices\n\nshould be in terms of the Act as it stood on the date of the expiry of the said\n\ntime limits, i.e., a 'stop-the-clock' provision, wherein a fiction is created as if\n\nthe compliance of the action is made within the time limit specified in the\n\nunamendedIncome-tax Actas it stood when the time for compliance\n\nexpired between 20th March 2020 and 31st March 2021.D. All reopening notices challenged have been issued in\n\naccordance with/under the unamended provisions of theIncome-tax Act,\n\n1961, as the provisions of the Relaxation Act empowered assessing officers\n\nto do so. The case of the Revenue is not that the old provisions apply after\n\n1st April 2021, butSection 3(1)empowers the officer to issue notices under\n\nthe old law.E. Relaxation Act is a beneficial legislation which relaxes\n\nrequirements in specified Acts for both assessees and revenue alike which\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                        60/71              1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nmust be given a purposive interpretation.F. Referring to para 80 of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad\n\nHigh Court - liberty should be granted to initiate reassessment proceedings\n\nin accordance with the provisions of the Act, as amended byFinance Act,\n\n2021, after making all compliances, as required by law.33              The submissions made by learned ASG, as additional arguments\n\nof respondents, as submitted by Mr. Mistri, with whom we agree, in effect\n\nare all restatement, made in different style, of the same argument urged\n\nbefore the Allahabad, Delhi, Rajasthan, Calcutta and Madras High Court.They had already argued/ contended that as the original time limit for\n\nissuing a notice underSection 148of the Act was expiring on or before\n\n31st March 2021 and such time limit has been extended by the Relaxation\n\nAct, the old/unamended provisions ofSection 148of the Act will continue\n\nto govern such notices. This submission of respondents ignores the legal\n\nposition that the provisions ofSections 147to151of the Act have been\n\nsubstituted with effect from 1st April 2021 by theFinance Act, 2021. Further\n\na newSection 148Aof the Act has been inserted with effect from 1 st April\n\n2021. Accordingly, the old/unamended provisions ofSections 148to151cease to have legal effect after 31 st March 2021 and the substituted\n\nprovisions ofSections 148to151have binding force from 1 st April 2021. In\n\nthe absence of a savings clause there is no legal device by which a repealed\n\nset of provisions can be applied and a set of provisions on the statute book\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                        61/71              1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n(in force) can be ignored. Further if the revenue's contention had the\n\nsemblance of legality or validity, the impugned Explanations in Notification\n\nNos. 20 and 38 of 2021 are otiose and superfluous. Moreover, Revenue's\n\narguments are unsustainable as various High Courts have considered and\n\nrejected the said arguments or facets thereof.34              It is well settled that the validity of a notice issued underSection 148of the Act must be judged on the basis of the law existing on the\n\ndate on which such notice is issued. Even the Revenue accepts this well\n\nsettled position. Further, the provisions ofSections 147to151are\n\nprocedural laws and accordingly, the provisions as existing on the date of\n\nthe notice would be applicable. Even the revenue accepts this legal position\n\nand the CBDT Circular No.549 of 1989, that Mr. Mistri relied upon,\n\nexplaining the provisions of theFinance Act, 1989 specifically sets out that\n\nany notices issued by Revenue after the amendment made by theFinance\n\nAct, 1989 must comply with the amended provision of the law. Therefore,\n\nany notice issued after 1st April, 2021 must comply with the amended\n\nprovisions of the Act which was amended with effect from 1 st April, 2021.This contention has also been considered and upheld by the Delhi High\n\nCourt and the Allahabad High Court.35              We have to also note the well settled proposition that when the\n\nAct specifies that something is to be done in a particular manner, then, that\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                        62/71              1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nthing must be done in that specified manner alone, and any other\n\nmethod/(s) of performance cannot be upheld. Hence, notices issued underSection 148of the Act after 1 st April, 2021 must comply with the amended\n\nprovisions of law and cannot be sustained on the basis of the erstwhile\n\nprovision.36              In order to uphold the arguments of the Revenue in this regard,\n\neither a savings clause, or a specific legislative enactment deferring\n\napplicability of the amended provisions and the repeal of the old provisions\n\nof the Act, would be required. Plainly no such savings clause or enactment is\n\navailable.37              Section 3(1) of Relaxation Act does not provide that any notice\n\nissued underSection 148of the Act, after 31 st March 2021 will relate back\n\nto the original date or that the clock is stopped on 31 st March, 2021 such\n\nthat the provision as existing on such date will be applicable to notices\n\nissued relying on the provision of Relaxation Act. A plain reading of\n\nRelaxation Act, as Mr. Mistri rightly submitted, makes it clear that Section\n\n3(1) of Relaxation Act merely extends the limitation provided in the\n\nspecified Acts (includingIncome-tax Act) for doing certain Acts but such\n\nActs must be performed in accordance with the provisions of the specified\n\nActs. Therefore, if there is an amendment in the specified Act, the amended\n\nprovision of the specified Act would apply to such actions of the Revenue.Gauri Gaekwad\n                                        63/71               1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.docThe Delhi High Court has considered and rejected the contention of the\n\nRevenue that the notice issued after 1st April 2021 relates back to an earlier\n\nperiod.38              The Delhi High Court has considered and rejected this\n\nargument of the Revenue that Relaxation Act creates a legal fiction such that\n\nthe notices issued underSection 148of the Act are deemed to be issued on\n\n31st March, 2021. The so-called legal fiction is directly contrary to the\n\nRevenue's own Circular No.549 of 1989, which is binding on them as well as\n\nthe well settled principle that the validity of a notice is to be judged on the\n\nbasis of the law that prevails at the time of its issue.39              Even though Relaxation Act was in existence when theFinance\n\nAct, 2021 was passed, the parliament has specifically made the amended\n\nprovisions ofSections 147to151of the Act as being applicable with effect\n\nfrom 1st April, 2021. Therefore, the intention of the legislature is clear that\n\nsubstituted provisions must apply to notices issued with effect from 1 st April,\n\n2021. No savings clause has been provided in the Act for saving the\n\nerstwhile provisions ofSections 147to151of the Act, like inSection 297of\n\nthe Act where, the Parliament when it intended, has specifically provided\n\nthe savings clause.40              On a plain reading of Relaxation Act it is clear that the only\n\npowers granted to the Central Government by Relaxation Act is the power to\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                        64/71               1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nnotify the period during which actions are required to be taken that can fall\n\nwithin the ambit of Relaxation Act, and the power to extend the time limit\n\nwithin which those actions are to be taken. A plain reading of the impugned\n\nExplanations in Notification Nos.20 of 2021 and 38 of 2021 shows that it\n\npurports to "clarify" that the unamended provisions ofSections 147to151of the Act will apply for the purposes of issue of notices underSection 148of the Act, which is clearly ultra vires Relaxation Act.41              In our view, the reopening notices issued after 1 st April, 2021\n\nare unsustainable and bad in law even if one was to apply the Explanations\n\nto the Notification Nos.20 of 2021 and 38 of 2021. The Explanation seeks to\n\nextend the applicability of erstwhileSections 148,149and151. The\n\nimpugned Explanation does not coverSection 147, which (as amended)\n\nempowers the revenue to reopen an assessment subject toSections 148to153, which includesSection 148A. Thus, even if Explanations are valid, the\n\nmandatory procedure laid down bySection 148Ahas not been followed and\n\nhence, without anything further, the notices underSection 148of the Act\n\nare invalid and must be struck down for this reason as well. This proposition\n\nhas also been upheld by the Delhi High Court.42              As regards Revenue's arguments that Relaxation Act being a\n\nbeneficial legislation must be given purposive interpretation', the purpose of\n\nSection 3(1) of Relaxation Act is to extend limitation periods as provided in\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                       65/71              1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\na specified Act (including theIncome-tax Act). The purpose of Section 3(1)\n\nof Relaxation Act is not to postpone the applicability of amended provisions\n\nof a Specified Act. Though Relaxation Act was in existence when theFinance\n\nAct, 2021 was passed, the Parliament has specifically enacted the new,\n\n(amended) provisions ofSection 147to151of the Act and made them\n\napplicable with effect form 1st April, 2021. Therefore, it is clear that\n\namendment is to be applied from 1 st April, 2021. Further, when there is no\n\nambiguity on the applicability of the provision, there is no question of\n\nresorting to purpose test.43              As regards liberty granted by the Allahabad High Court,\n\ncertainly, if the law permits issuance of notices underSection 148of the Act\n\n(as amended), afresh, then no liberty is required to be granted by the Court,\n\nand it would be within the Assessing Officer's powers to initiate proceedings\n\nas per the amended law. The Madras High Court has considered this very\n\nplea and granted liberty to initiate reassessment proceedings in accordance\n\nwith the provisions of the amended Act, "if limitation for it survives".44              As submitted by Mr. Mistri, with whom we agree, Chapter II of\n\nRelaxation Act provide for - "Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified\n\nAct"andSection 3forms part of this Chapter. Further Chapter III provides\n\nfor amendment toIncome Tax Act, 1961 and various Sections of the Act\n\nhave been amended in Chapter III. From this the following propositions\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                       66/71              1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nemerge :(a) Wherever the Parliament thought fit, the Parliament has\n\nitself amended the provision of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 and not left it for\n\nthe CBDT to make the amendment. Therefore, it is clear that no power is\n\ngiven under Relaxation Act to postpone the applicability of provisions of theIncome Tax Act.(b) Chapter II of Relaxation Act is only for 'Relaxation of\n\nCertain Provisions of Specified Act' and, therefore, there is no question of\n\nthe Revenue relying on this Chapter andSection 3to justify the\n\npostponement of applicability of certain provisions of theIncome Tax Act. If\n\nthe Parliament wanted to give some right to the CBDT, it would have formed\n\npart of Chapter III, however, there is no such provision in Chapter III of the\n\nAct.45              As submitted by Mr. Pardiwalla there are other Sections in theFinance Act, 2021 which have amended other provisions of theIncome Tax\n\nActfrom dates other than 1st April, 2021. Like for exampleSection 12of the\n\nFinance Act inserted a proviso inSection 43CA. Had the intention of the\n\nlegislature, while amendingSections 147to153, been to give it effect from\n\n1stJuly, 2021, a similar savings clause could have been inserted, which has\n\nnot been done. We agree with Mr. Pardiwalla because as perSection 1(2)(a)of the Finance Act, 2021, the amendments toSections 147to153of the Act\n\nshall come into force on 1st April, 2021. Similarly, the Memorandum\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                         67/71               1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nexplaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2021 clarifies that these\n\namendments will take effect from 1 st April, 2021.Section 12of the Finance\n\nAct inserted a proviso inSection 43CAwhich inter alia provides that the\n\nwords 'one hundred and ten percent' in the first proviso will be substituted\n\nby the words 'one hundred and twenty percent' if the transfer of residential\n\nunits takes place during the period beginning from 12 th day of November,\n\n2020 and ending on the 30th day of June, 2021. Therefore, had the intention\n\nof the legislature, while amendingSections 147to153, was to give it effect\n\nfrom 1stJuly, 2021, a similar savings clause could have been inserted, which\n\nhas not been done.46              Mr. Pardiwalla submitted that only Section 4 of Relaxation Act\n\nwhich amended the Act and no such amendments to the substantive\n\nprovisions of the Act were envisaged under Section 3 of Relaxation Act,\n\nwhich was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits under various\n\nenactments.47              As noted earlier, it is Revenue's case that Section 3 of Relaxation\n\nAct enabled the Central Government to issue notifications which would\n\npermit the Assessing Officers to issue notices underSection 148of the Act\n\nafter 1st April, 2021 in terms of the erstwhile provisions ofSections 147tosection 151, even though the said provisions were repealed with effect from\n\n1st April, 2021 by theFinance Act, 2021. It is, however, pertinent to note\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                       68/71               1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\nthat Section 3 of Relaxation Act falls in Chapter II of the said Act, which is\n\ntitled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act'. In contradistinction,\n\nSection 4 of Relaxation Act which does amend several provisions of the Act\n\nfalls in Chapter III, which is titled 'Amendments to theIncome Tax Act,\n\n1961'. It will be apposite to notice that the amendments provided for inSection 4were made by the Legislature itself in terms of the said Section\n\nand no such power to amend the Act was delegated to the Central\n\nGovernment. Therefore, we would agree with Mr. Pardiwalla that it is only\n\nSection 4 of Relaxation Act which amended the Act and no such\n\namendments to the substantive provisions of the Act were envisaged under\n\nSection 3 of Relaxation Act, which was only a relaxation provision dealing\n\nwith time limits under various enactments.48              Mr. Pardiwalla submitted that even assuming for a moment that\n\nthe primary contention of petitioners that the Explanations in the\n\nnotifications are invalid is not accepted, still the impugned notices will be\n\nbad in law as the Explanation only seeks to effectuate the provisions of the\n\nerstwhileSections 148,149and151of the Act. It does not cover the\n\nerstwhileSection 147of the Act. As rightly submitted by Mr. Pardiwalla, the\n\nAssessing Officer could have assumed jurisdiction while issuing the\n\nimpugned notices only after complying with the amendedSection 147. The\n\nsame has not been done by the Assessing Officers as (a) his assumption of\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                        69/71               1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\njurisdiction is on the basis of his 'reason to believe' that income chargeable\n\nto tax has escaped assessment, a concept, which is no longer recognised in\n\nthe amendedSection 147; and (b) the amendedSection 147is in any event\n\nsubject toSections 148to153, which would also include the procedure\n\ncontained inSection 148A, which has not been followed. Therefore, the\n\nimpugned notices do not even comply with the relevant statutory provisions,\n\neven if we do not find fault with the Explanations in the two notifications.Infact the Delhi High Court in paragraph 84 of Mon Mohan Kohli (Supra)\n\nhas also considered and accepted this aspect of the matter.49              Some more reasons why the reopening notices must go are :(a)Section 297of the Act provides a saving clause for\n\napplicability of various provisions of the 1922 Act, even though the Act itself\n\nhad been repealed. In the absence of such a saving clause for applicability of\n\nerstwhileSections 147to151of the Act, the amended provision of the Act\n\nwould apply from 1st April, 2021.(b) Moreover, the reopening notices issued after 1 st April, 2021\n\nare bad in law even if one was to apply the Explanations to the Notification\n\nNos.20 and 38. The Explanations seek to extend the applicability of\n\nerstwhileSections 148,149and151. They do not coverSection 147, which\n\nempowers revenue to reopen subject toSection 148to153, which includesSection 148A. Thus, even if Explanation are valid, procedure ofSection\n\n148Ais not followed and hence, notices are invalid.Gauri Gaekwad\n                                        70/71              1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc(c) In any case, Relaxation Act is not applicable for Assessment\n\nYears 2015-2016 or any subsequent year and, hence, the question of\n\napplicability of the Notification Nos.20 and 38 of 2021 does not arise. The\n\ntime limit to issue notice underSection 148of the Act for the Assessment\n\nYears 2015-2016 onwards was not expiring within the period for which\n\nSection 3(1) of Relaxation Act was applicable and, hence, Relaxation Act\n\ncould never apply for these assessment years. As a consequence, there can\n\nbe no question of extending the period of limitation for such assessment\n\nyears.50              To sum up, since we are in respectful agreement with the\n\nreasons recorded and views taken by the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan\n\nHigh Court, Delhi High Court and Madras High Court, in the cases referred\n\nhereinabove, and for reasons noted above, all these writ petitions listed\n\nabove are disposed by allowing the same. The explanations to the\n\nNotification No.20 of 2021 dated 31 st March 2021 and Notification No.38 of\n\n2021 dated 27th April 2021 are declared ultra vires and are, therefore, bad\n\nin law and null and void.51              All the impugned notices issued underSection 148of the Act\n\nare quashed and set aside.52              It will be open to the Assessing Officers concerned to initiate\n\nfresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions\n\n\nGauri Gaekwad\n                                                   71/71               1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc\n\n\n\n\n          of the Act as amended by theFinance Act, 2021 after strictly complying with\n\n          the provisions of the Act.53              All petitions disposed accordingly. No order as to costs.(N.J. JAMADAR, J.)                                           (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)\n\n\n          Digitally signed\n          by GAURI\nGAURI     AMIT\nAMIT      GAEKWAD\nGAEKWAD   Date:\n          2022.03.29\n          17:06:36 +0530\n\n\n\n\n          Gauri Gaekwad