Court Invalidates Re-assessment Notices for 2015-16 Due to Finance Act Changes

The court invalidated notices of re-assessment for the assessment year 2015-16, citing changes in reassessment provisions under the Finance Act, 2021. It clarified that the new provisions apply to notices issued after 01.04.2021, rejecting time-barred notices for past periods. The court deemed explanations in CBDT notifications unconstitutional, emphasizing subordinate legislation must align with the parent Act. It quashed the notices, affirming the Single Judge's decision, dismissing revenue appeals, and allowing all writ petitions.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notice of re-assessment for assessment year 2015-16 based on recent judgment on reassessment provisions under Finance Act, 2021.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a notice of re-assessment for the assessment year 2015-16, citing a recent Division Bench judgment in a similar case. The judgment highlighted the changes brought by the Finance Act, 2021 to the reassessment provisions. It emphasized that the new scheme of reassessment under Section 148A enables the Assessing Officer to make inquiries based on material suggesting income escaping assessment. The judgment clarified that the new provisions apply to notices issued after 01.04.2021, and extended time limits for issuing notices under Section 148 do not revive time-barred notices for past periods. The judgment scrutinized the first proviso to Section 149(1) and concluded that all notices issued post 01.04.2021 must adhere to the new provisions, invalidating notices not following the procedure under Section 148A.

The judgment further analyzed the validity of explanations provided in notifications issued by the CBDT on 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021. It discussed the presumption of constitutionality of statutes and subordinate legislations, emphasizing that subordinate legislation can be challenged on various grounds, including being manifestly arbitrary. The judgment cited precedents to support the view that subordinate legislation must conform to the parent Act's provisions and cannot exceed delegated powers. It concluded that the explanations in the CBDT notifications, attempting to alter statutory provisions, were unconstitutional and invalid.

The judgment referenced similar views taken by Division Benches of other High Courts and emphasized the necessity of subordinate legislation aligning with the parent Act. It disagreed with a contrary view taken by a Single Judge of another High Court, asserting that notifications did not defer the application of reassessment provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. Ultimately, the judgment declared the impugned notices invalid and quashed them, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed, and all writ petitions were allowed, with pending applications disposed of accordingly.

---