TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1351
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nship Private Limited, Suraj Prakash Meena, Pabu Dan Singh Huf, Amit Tak, Dipthanshu Jain, Sheikh Naseem, Shivani Sheikh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND For Petitioner: Mr. Ramanuj Sharma, Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma And Mr. Prateek Kedawat For Respondent: Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Nikhil Simlote ORDER Defects, if any as pointed out by the Registry stand waived. With the consent of the parties, all these matters are heard and decided together by a common order. This bunch of writ petitions as well as D.B. Special Appeals (Writs) arising out of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge involves the same issue. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the respective notices issued by the Assessing Officers under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for various assessment years. All these notices were issued after 01.04.2021 and pertain to the relevant period which is prior to the said date. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners and some of the writ petitons were submitted before the Division Bench in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The concept of income chargeable to tax escaping assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly or fully all material facts is no longer relevant. Elaborate provisions are made under Section 148A of the Act enabling the Assessing Officer to make enquiry with respect to material suggesting that income has escaped assessment, issuance of notice to the assessee calling upon why notice under Section 148 should not be issued and passing an order considering the material available on record including response of the assessee if made while deciding whether the case is fit for issuing notice under Section 148. There is absolutely no indication in all these provisions which would suggest that the legislature intended that the new scheme of reopening of assessments would be applicable only to the period post 01.04.2021. In absence of any such indication all notices which were issued after 01.04.2021 had to be in accordance with such provisions. To reiterate, we find no indication whatsoever in the scheme of statutory provisions suggesting that the past provisions would continue to apply even after the substitution for the assessment periods prior to substitu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cumstances the extended period available in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 149 which we may recall now stands at 10 years instead of 6 years previously available with the revenue, can be pressed in service for reopening assessments for the past period. This flows from the plain meaning of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 149. In plain terms a notice which had become time barred prior to 01.04.2021 as per the then prevailing provisions, would not be revived by virtue of the application of Section 149(1)(b) effective from 01.04.2021. All the notices issued in the present cases are after 01.04.2021 and have been issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148A of the Act and are therefore invalid. 38. The second question framed by us arises in this context. Would the explanation contained in both the notifications of CBDT dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 save the situation for the revenue? 39. It is well settled that there is presumption of constitutionality of a statute (refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in case of The State of Jammu & Kashmir, Vs. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., reported in AIR 1974 SC 1). The said principle of presum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect matter. Therefore, it has to yield to plenary legislation. It can also be questioned on the ground that it is manifestly arbitrary and unjust. That, any inquiry into its vires must be confined to the grounds on which plenary legislation may be questioned, to the grounds that it is contrary to the statute under which it is made, to the grounds that it is contrary to other statutory provisions or on the ground that it is so patently arbitrary that it cannot be said to be inconformity with the statute. It can also be challenged on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution." 40. With this background we may revert to the Relaxation Act, 2020 and the two notifications issued by the CBDT. We may recall, under subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020 while extending the time limits for taking action and making compliances in the specified Acts upto 31.12.2020 the power was given to the Central Government to extend the time further by issuing a notification. This was the only power vested in the Central Government. As a piece of delegated legislation the notifications issued in exercise of such powers, had to be within the confines of such powers. In p....