AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 264
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....024 C.A. No. 8843-8844/2024 C.A. No. 8668/2024 C.A. No. 8678/2024 C.A. No. 8680/2024 C.A. No. 8679/2024 C.A. No. 8669/2024 C.A. No. 8673/2024 C.A. No. 8682/2024 C.A. No. 10242/2024 C.A. No. 8683/2024 C.A. No. 8685/2024 C.A. No. 8687/2024 C.A. No. 10244/2024 C.A. No. 8684/2024 C.A. No. 8671/2024 C.A. No. 9822/2024 C.A. No. 8689/2024 C.A. No. 10245/2024 C.A. No. 8672/2024 C.A. No. 10246/2024 C.A. No. 8670/2024 C.A. No. 8681/2024 C.A. No. 10250/2024 C.A. No. 8676/2024 C.A. No. 8686/2024 C.A. No. 8688/2024 C.A. No. 10251/2024 C.A. No. 10252/2024 C.A. No. 8695/2024 C.A. No. 8674/2024 C.A. No. 8677/2024 C.A. No. 8713/2024 C.A. No. 8692/2024 C.A. No. 8690/2024 C.A. No. 8699/2024 C.A. No. 8691/2024 C.A. No. 8704/2024 C.A. No. 10254/2024 C.A. No. 8845/2024 C.A. No. 8846/2024 C.A. No. 8696/2024 C.A. No. 8707/2024 C.A. No. 8697/2024 C.A. No. 8847/2024 C.A. No. 8706/2024 C.A. No. 8852/2024 C.A. No. 8705/2024 C.A. No. 8848/2024 C.A. No. 8709/2024 C.A. No. 8708/2024 C.A. No. 8703/2024 C.A. No. 8849/2024 C.A. No. 8630/2024 C.A. No. 8656/2024 C.A. No. 8665/2024 T.P.(C) No. 2187-2194/2024 C.A. No. 8675/2024 C.A. No. 8700/2024 C.A. No. 8969/2024 C.A. No. 8746/2024 C.A. No. 8825/2024 C.A. No. 8698/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 8910/2024 C.A. No. 9282/2024 C.A. No. 9285/2024 C.A. No. 9287/2024 C.A. No. 9296/2024 C.A. No. 9298/2024 C.A. No. 9300/2024 C.A. No. 9302/2024 C.A. No. 9304/2024 C.A. No. 8911/2024 C.A. No. 9305/2024 C.A. No. 9306/2024 C.A. No. 9311/2024 C.A. No. 9314/2024 C.A. No. 9312/2024 C.A. No. 8976/2024 C.A. No. 8994/2024 C.A. No. 8912/2024 C.A. No. 8977/2024 C.A. No. 8850/2024 C.A. No. 8978/2024 C.A. No. 8983/2024 C.A. No. 8972/2024 C.A. No. 8973/2024 C.A. No. 8974/2024 C.A. No. 8995/2024 C.A. No. 8996/2024 C.A. No. 8984/2024 C.A. No. 8985/2024 C.A. No. 8988/2024 C.A. No. 8989/2024 C.A. No. 8990/2024 C.A. No. 8999/2024 C.A. No. 8913/2024 C.A. No. 8991/2024 C.A. No. 10215/2024 C.A. No. 8992/2024 C.A. No. 9001/2024 C.A. No. 9002/2024 C.A. No. 8914/2024 C.A. No. 9003/2024 C.A. No. 8993/2024 C.A. No. 9005/2024 C.A. No. 9006/2024 C.A. No. 8635/2024 C.A. No. 10984 /2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 23391/2024) (Diary No 24653/2023) C.A. No. 9261/2024 C.A. No. 9273/2024 C.A. No. 9038/2024 C.A. No. 8997/2024 C.A. No. 9000/2024 C.A. No. 9039/2024 C.A. No. 9008/2024 C.A. No. 9009/2024 C.A. No. 9010/2024 C.A. No. 9025/2024 C.A. No. 9027/2024 C.A. No. 9004/2024 C.A. No. 9011/2024 C.A. No. 8915/2024 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 9294/2024 C.A. No. 9338/2024 C.A. No. 9348/2024 C.A. No. 9799/2024 C.A. No. 9321/2024 C.A. No. 9322/2024 C.A. No. 9366/2024 C.A. No. 9349/2024 C.A. No. 9351/2024 C.A. No. 9323/2024 C.A. No. 9374/2024 C.A. No. 9324/2024 C.A. No. 9375/2024 C.A. No. 9376/2024 C.A. No. 9378/2024 C.A. No. 9805/2024 C.A. No. 9325/2024 C.A. No. 9329/2024 C.A. No. 9352/2024 C.A. No. 9488/2024 C.A. No. 9573/2024 C.A. No. 9576/2024 C.A. No. 9574/2024 C.A. No. 9354/2024 C.A. No. 9380/2024 C.A. No. 9473/2024 C.A. No. 9581/2024 C.A. No. 9474/2024 C.A. No. 9586/2024 C.A. No. 9496/2024 C.A. No. 9497/2024 C.A. No. 9381/2024 C.A. No. 9359/2024 C.A. No. 9360/2024 C.A. No. 9499/2024 C.A. No. 9489/2024 C.A. No. 9495/2024 C.A. No. 9363/2024 C.A. No. 9575/2024 C.A. No. 9502/2024 C.A. No. 9583/2024 C.A. No. 9342/2024 C.A. No. 9341/2024 C.A. No. 9411/2024 C.A. No. 9297/2024 C.A. No. 9277/2024 C.A. No. 8851/2024 C.A. No. 9529/2024 C.A. No. 9483/2024 C.A. No. 9484/2024 C.A. No. 9800/2024 C.A. No. 9431/2024 C.A. No. 9485/2024 C.A. No. 9567/2024 C.A. No. 9432/2024 C.A. No. 9804/2024 C.A. No. 9802/2024 C.A. No. 9556/2024 C.A. No. 9487/2024 C.A. No. 9490/2024 C.A. No. 9379/2024 C.A. No. 8807/2024 C.A. No. 9433/2024 C.A. No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....551/2024 C.A. No. 9445/2024 C.A. No. 9552/2024 C.A. No. 9443/2024 C.A. No. 8945/2024 C.A. No. 8813/2024 C.A. No. 9339/2024 C.A. No. 9464/2024 C.A. No. 9565/2024 C.A. No. 8817/2024 C.A. No. 9524/2024 C.A. No. 9310/2024 C.A. No. 9553/2024 C.A. No. 9343/2024 C.A. No. 8835/2024 C.A. No. 9313/2024 C.A. No. 9357/2024 C.A. No. 9372/2024 C.A. No. 8933/2024 C.A. No. 9554/2024 C.A. No. 8812/2024 C.A. No. 9525/2024 C.A. No. 8815/2024 C.A. No. 9320/2024 C.A. No. 9442/2024 C.A. No. 9466/2024 C.A. No. 9526/2024 C.A. No. 9439/2024 C.A. No. 9926/2024 C.A. No. 9555/2024 C.A. No. 9527/2024 C.A. No. 8935/2024 C.A. No. 9385/2024 C.A. No. 9528/2024 C.A. No. 8816/2024 C.A. No. 8936/2024 C.A. No. 8839/2024 C.A. No. 9572/2024 C.A. No. 9440/2024 C.A. No. 9344/2024 C.A. No. 9566/2024 C.A. No. 9237/2024 C.A. No. 9242/2024 C.A. No. 8633/2024 C.A. No. 8657/2024 C.A. No. 9251/2024 C.A. No. 9569/2024 C.A. No. 9307/2024 C.A. No. 9570/2024 C.A. No. 9577/2024 C.A. No. 10293/2024 C.A. No. 9435/2024 C.A. No. 9403/2024 C.A. No. 8834/2024 C.A. No. 9382/2024 C.A. No. 9579/2024 C.A. No. 9318/2024 C.A. No. 9580/2024 C.A. No. 9315/2024 C.A. No. 9326/2024 C.A. No. 9405/2024 C.A. No. 9591/2024 C.A. No. 9406/2024 C.A. No. 959....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Pratap, Adv. Ms. Anupriya Dixit, Adv. Mr. Amjid Maqbool, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Pratap, AOR Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mrs. Vanita Bhargava, Adv. Mr. Ajay Bhargava, Adv. Ms. Nandita Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Tijil Thakur, Adv. M/S. Khaitan & Co., AOR Mr. R. K. Patel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR Mr. Dhinal Shah, Adv. Mr. Darshan Patel, Adv. Mr. Bandish Soparkar, Adv. Ms. Samridhi, Adv. Ms. Sukanya Joshi, Adv. Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Kriti Gupta, Adv. Mr. Deepak Prakash, AOR Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, AOR Mr. Mohit Balani, Adv. Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu Kaushesh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, AOR Mr. Devendra Singh, AOR Mr. Ankit Anandraj Shah, AOR Mr. Niraj Gupta, AOR Mrs. Anshu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jain, Adv. Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Paliwal, AOR Mr. Rahul Hakani, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bekal, Adv. Ms. Niyati Mankad, Adv. Ms. Neelam Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Rohit Singh, AOR Mr. Kartik Kurmy, Adv. Mr. Ashok Anand, AOR Mr. S. K. Verma, AOR Ms. Rutuja N Pawar, Adv. Ms. Hetal Laghave, Adv. Ms. Sneha More, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Hardikaa Kalia, Adv. Ms. Tavishi Jain, Adv. Mr. Vikas Verma, Adv. Mr. Suryanarayana Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Anu Kushwaha, Adv. Mr. R.p. Bansal, Adv. Mr. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sukhsagar Syal, Adv. Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR Mr. Ansh Mittal, Adv. Mr. Amar Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Ms. Miranda Solaman, Adv. Mr. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Verma, AOR Mr. Shivraj Pawar, Adv. Mr. Jeet Kamdar, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, AOR Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, AOR Mr. Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, Adv. Ms. Anushree Prashit Kapadia, AOR Mr. Nitin Mehta, Adv. Ms. Ekta Kundu, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Wadhwa, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Ms. Priyanshi Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Keshav Dev, Adv. Mrs. Arpana Soni, Adv. Mr. B. K. Satija, AOR Mr. Venketesh Chaurasia, Adv. Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. Dr. Parbodh Malhotra, Adv. Mrs. Renu Arora, Adv. Mr. Jay Kishor Singh, AOR M/S. Vachher And Agrud, AOR Mr. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kishor, Adv. Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Aditya Narayan Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Adv. Ms. Praveena ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....old regime ................................................ 75 b. Reading TOLA into Section 149 .................................................................... 82 iii. Sanction of the specified authority .............................................................. 86 F. Section 148 notices issued in June-September 2022 ..................................... 91 i. Scope of Article 142 ....................................................................................... 91 ii. The scope of Ashish Agarwal extended to all the reassessment notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 under the old regime ...... 96 iii. Effect of the legal fiction ................................................................................ 99 a. Third proviso to Section 149 ....................................................................... 100 b. Interplay of Ashish Agarwal with TOLA ....................................................... 107 G. Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 110 1. The present batch of appeals involves the interplay of three Parliamentary statutes: th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Commissioner,^11 Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.^12 The authorities have a distinct meaning under the Income Tax Act. Following a decision of this Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. Income Tax Officer,^13 the assessing officer was also required to furnish reasons for reopening assessments and give an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. The Revenue had to follow the following procedure for reopening assessment under the old regime: (i) Section 147 allowed the assessing officer to reassess any income chargeable to tax if the officer had "reasons to believe" that such income escaped assessment; (ii) The assessing officer had to ensure that the notice under Section 148 was issued within the time limits prescribed under Section 149; (iii) The assessing officer had to obtain the sanction of the specified authority under Section 151 before issuing a reassessment notice; (iv) The assessing officer had to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee in terms of GKN Driveshafts (supra); and (v) The assessing officer was thereafter empowered to issue a notice of reassessment under Section 148. ii. TOLA 6. On 24 Marc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may, by notification, specify in this behalf:" 8. Section 3(1) empowered the Central Government to extend the time limit beyond 31 March 2021 by a notification. In pursuance of its powers, the Central Government issued the following notifications to extend the period of relaxation till 30 June 2021: a. Notification No. 93 of 2020 dated 31 December 2020 extended the end date to 30 March 2021. Resultantly, TOLA covered the period between 20 March 2020 to 30 March 2021; b. Notification No. 20 of 2021 dated 31 March 2021 specified that 31 April 2021 shall be the end date of the time period covered by TOLA. It extended the time limit for completion or compliance of actions under the Income Tax Act till 30 April 2021; and c. Notification No. 38 of 2021 dated 27 April 2021 extended the time limit for completion or compliance of actions till 30 June 2021. 9. The effect of TOLA and the notifications issued under the legislation was that: (i) if the time prescribed for passing of any order or issuance of any notice, sanction, or approval fell for completion or compliance from 20 March 2020 to 31 March 2021; and (ii) if the completion or compliance o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irector General or Chief Commissioner or Director General if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. 11. The notifications dated 31 March 2021 and 27 April 2021 issued by the Central Government under Section 3(1) of TOLA contained an explanation declaring that the provisions under the old regime shall apply to the reassessment proceedings initiated under them.^24 Thus, the notifications directed the assessing officers to apply the provisions of the old regime for reassessment notices issued after 1 April 2021. The assessing officers accordingly issued reassessment notices between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 by relying on the provisions under Section 148 of the old regime. These reassessment notices were challenged by the assesses before various High Courts.^25 12. The High Courts allowed the writ petitions and quashed all the reassessment notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 under the old regime on the ground that: (i) Sections 147 to 151 stood substituted by Finance Act 2021 from 1 April 2021;^26 (ii) In the absence of any saving clause, the Revenue could initiate reassessment proceedings after 1 April 2021 only in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose which have been quashed by the High Courts. 28.3. Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the prior approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the assessing officers concerned to hold any enquiry, if required. 28.4. The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assessees concerned; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under Section 148-A may issue notice under Section 148 (as substituted). 28.5. All defences which may be available to the assessees including those available under Section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentions which may be available to the assessees concerned and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available." 14. On 11 May 2022, the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued an Instruction^30 for the implementation of the decision Ashish Agarwal (supra). The Instruction "clarified" that Ashish Agarwal (supra) will apply "to all cases where extended reassessment notices have been issued [...] irrespective of the fact whether such notices have been challenged or not." Paragraph 6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issue by holding that all reassessment notices issued after 1 April 2021 should have been issued in accordance with the new regime. However, the Court construed the notices issued under Section 148 of the old regime by deeming them to be notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the new regime. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court did not deal with the issue of whether or not the reassessment notices were issued within the time limits prescribed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act read with the relaxations provided under TOLA. This is the primary issue that comes up for our consideration in the present batch of appeals. B. Issues 18. The present batch of appeals gives rise to the following issues: a. Whether TOLA and notifications issued under it will also apply to reassessment notices issued after 1 April 2021; and b. Whether the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the new regime between July and September 2022 are valid. C. Submissions 19. Mr N Venkataraman, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions on behalf of the Revenue: a. Parliament enacted TOLA as a free-standing legislation to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA; g. Section 2 of TOLA defines "specified Act" to mean and include the Income Tax Act. The new regime, which came into effect on 1 April 2021, is now part of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, TOLA continues to apply to the Income Tax Act even after 1 April 2021; and h. Ashish Agarwal (supra) treated Section 148 notices issued by the Revenue between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 as show-cause notices in terms of Section 148A(b). Thereafter, the Revenue issued notices under Section 148 of the new regime between July and August 2022. Invalidation of the Section 148 notices issued under the new regime on the ground that they were issued beyond the time limit specified under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA will completely frustrate the judicial exercise undertaken by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra). 20. Mr Percy Pardiwalla, Mr V Sridharan, Mr Tushar Hemani, Mr Saurabh Soparkar, and Mr K Shivram, learned senior counsel, Mr Manish Shah, Mr Darshan Patel, Mr Suhrith Parthasarthy, Mr Dharan Gandhi, and Mr Ved Jain, learned counsel, made the following submissions on be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent proceedings could not have been initiated for such assesses. e. The applicability of the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime has to be tested on the date of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the new regime. Even if TOLA is read into the Income Tax Act, the time limits for completion or compliance of actions can be extended till 30 June 2021. However, the notices under Section 148 of the new regime were issued by the Revenue from July to September 2022. The period of July to September 2022 is beyond the extended time limits stipulated under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA; f. Ashish Agarwal (supra) cannot be interpreted in a manner to exclude the entire period from April 2021 to September 2022. The directions issued by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot contravene the substantive provisions contained in the Income Tax Act. Moreover, this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) expressly left open all the defences available to the assesses under the new regime, including the defence of limitation available under Section 149; and g. TOLA is only applicable to the provisions that specify time limits. Section 151 does ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., no other assessment other than that made by the statute itself is necessary."^38 24. The expression "assessment" comprehends the entire procedure for ascertaining and imposing liability upon taxpayers.^39 The process of assessment involves computation of the income of the assessees, determination of tax payable by them, and the procedure for collecting or recovering tax.^40 An assessing officer is concerned with the assessment and collection of revenue. An assessing officer must administer the provisions of the Income Tax Act in the interests of the public revenue and to prevent evasion or escapement of tax legitimately due to the State.^41 25. In Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S Advani,^42 Justice S R Das (as the learned Chief Justice then was), in his concurring opinion observed that if a statutory authority has the power to perform any act that will prejudicially affect the subject, then although there are no two parties apart from the authority and the contest is between the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it, the final determination of the authority will be quasijudicial provided the authority is required by the statute to act judicially. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s following the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Under the Income Tax Act 1922,^54 Section 34 allowed an Income Tax Officer to reassess income that escaped assessment for a relevant assessment year. Section 34 provided that a reassessment notice could not be issued beyond the prescribed time limit (which was generally within eight years from the end of the relevant assessment year). Thus, Section 34 conferred jurisdiction on Income Tax Officers to reopen an assessment subject to the issuance of notice within the prescribed time limits.^55 In Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. S G Mehta, ITO,^56 Justice M Hidayatullah (as the learned Chief Justice then was), writing for himself and Justice Raghubar Dayal, observed: "It must be remembered that if the Income-tax Act prescribes a period during which the tax due in any particular assessment year may be assessed, then on the expiry of that period the department cannot make an assessment. Where no period is prescribed that assessment can be completed at any time but once completed it is final. Once a final assessment has been made, it can only be reopened to rectify a mistake apparent from the record (sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ular manner, then that authority has to exercise its power following the prescribed manner.^62 Any exercise of power by statutory authorities inconsistent with the statutory prescription is invalid.63 Section 34 of the Income Tax Act 1922 prescribed a duty on Income Tax Officers to seek prior approval of the Commissioner before issuing a reassessment notice. In CIT v. Maharaja Pratapsingh Bahadur of Gidhaur,^64 a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that a notice issued under Section 34 without prior approval of the Commissioner was invalid. 31. The Income Tax Act 1961 also mandates assessing officers to fulfil certain pre-conditions before issuing a notice of reassessment. Section 149 requires assessing officers to issue a notice of reassessment under Section 148 within the prescribed time limits. Further, Section 151 requires assessing officers to obtain sanction of the specified authority before issuing notice under Section 148. In Chhugamal Rajpal v. S P Chaliha, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that Section 151 must be strictly adhered to because it contains "important safeguards."^65 32. A statutory authority may lack jurisdiction if it does not fulfil the prelimi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d strictly, but the machinery provisions must be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation.^81 The purpose is to give effect to the clear intention of the legislature. In Murarilal Mahabir Prasad v. B R Vad,^82 this Court held that: "29. [...] There is no equity about a tax in the sense that a provision by which a tax is imposed has to be construed strictly, regardless of the hardship that such a construction may cause either to the treasury or to the taxpayer. If the subject falls squarely within the letter of law he must be taxed, howsoever inequitable the consequences may appear to the judicial mind. If the Revenue seeking to tax cannot bring the subject within the letter of law, the subject is free no matter that such a construction may cause serious prejudice to the Revenue. In other words, though what is called equitable construction may be admissible in relation to other statutes or other provisions of a taxing statute, such a construction is not admissible in the interpretation of a charging or taxing provision of a taxing statute." 37. A statute is designed to be workable. A statutory provision must be construed in a manner t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owed to be converted as 'revisional' or 'review' proceedings at the instance of the assessee, thereby making the machinery unworkable." iv. Principle of harmonious construction 39. The legislature is presumed to enact a consistent and harmonious body of laws in deference to the rule of law.^90 In case of any apparent conflict within a provision or between two provisions of the same statute, the courts must read the provisions harmoniously.^91 The principle of harmonious construction requires courts to bring about a reconciliation between seemingly conflicting provisions to give effect to both. An interpretation which reduces one of the provisions to a "dead letter" is not a harmonious construction. The principle of harmonious construction also applies to reconcile two seemingly conflicting provisions of different statutes.^92 40. A legislature often appends a non obstante clause to a provision to give it an overriding effect over provisions contained in the same statute or a separate statute.^93 The purpose of incorporating a non obstante clause in a provision is to prohibit the operation and effect of all contrary provisions.^94 In Chadavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o plainly repugnant to each other that they cannot stand together and it is not possible on any reasonable hypothesis to give effect to both at the same time; c. It is necessary to closely scrutinise and consider the true meaning and effect of both the earlier and the later statute; and d. If the objects of the two statutory provisions are different and the language of each statute is restricted to its objects or subject, then they are generally intended to rule in parallel lines without meeting and there would be no real conflict. 43. The principle on which the rule of implied repeal rests is that if the subjectmatter of a later legislation is identical to that of an earlier legislation so that they both cannot stand together, then the earlier legislation is impliedly repealed by the later legislation.^101 The courts have to determine whether the legislature intended the two sets of provisions to be applied simultaneously.^102 The presumption against implied repeal is based on the theory that the legislature knows the existing laws and does not intend to create any confusion by retaining two conflicting provisions or statutes.^103 The test to be applied for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. 47. In CTO v. Biswanath Jhunjhunwalla,^107 the Bengal Sales Tax Rules 1941 empowered the Commissioner to revise any assessment within four years from the date of assessment. Subsequently, the State Government issued a notification following the law to extend the time limit from four years to six years from the date of assessment. The extension of the time limit was challenged by the respondents on the ground that the assessments which had attained finality because of the expiry of the period of four years could not be reassessed. This Court observed that it was the clear intention of the notification to permit the Commissioner to revise any assessment made or order passed, provided the assessment had not been made before six years. It was held that if the legislative intention is clear and the language is unambiguous, full effect must be given to the legislative intention by reading the notification as applying not only to the incomplete assessments but also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the new regime is the increase in the monetary threshold from Rupees one lakh to Rupees fifty lakhs. The old regime prescribed a time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment was more than Rupees one lakh. In comparison, the new regime increases the time limit to ten years if the escaped assessment amounts to more than Rupees fifty lakhs. This change could be summarized thus : Regime Time limit Income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment Old regime Four years but not more than six years Rupees one lakh or more New regime Three years but not more than ten years Rupees fifty lakhs or more 51. Given Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, reassessment notices could be issued after three years only if the income chargeable to tax which escaped assessment is more than Rupees fifty lakhs. The proviso to Section 149(1)(b) limits the retrospectivity of that provision with respect to the time limits specified under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. 52. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court held that the benefit of the new regime must be provided for the reassessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In Shamrao V Parulekar v. District Magistrate, Thana,^108 a Constitution Bench of this Court was called upon to decide the validity of the detention of the petitioner under the Preventive Detention Amendment Act 1950.^109 The Detention Act 1950 was due to expire on 1 April 1951, but the legislation was amended to prolong its life by another year till 1 April 1952. The petitioner was detained on 15 November 1951 and his detention would have expired on 1 April 1952 with the expiration of the enactment. However, the Detention Act 1950 was amended in 1952, further prolonging its application for six months till 1 October 1952. The issue before this Court was whether the prolonging of the Detention Act 1950 also prolonged the detention of the petitioner. 56. Justice Vivian Bose, writing for the Constitution Bench, held that the detention continued until the expiry of the Detention Act 1950 on 1 October 1952. The learned Judge further observed: "7. The rule is that when a subsequent Act amends an earlier one in such a way as to incorporate itself, or a part of itself, into the earlier, then the earlier Act must thereafter be read and construed (except where that would lead to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....followed by fresh legislation by an amending Act, such legislation is prospective in operation and does not affect substantive or vested rights of the parties unless made retrospective either expressly or by necessary intendment."^116 This Court held that the language used by the legislature indicated that it was introduced with prospective effect and could not affect the accrued rights of the co-sharers. The decision of this Court in Shyam Sunder (supra) is an authority for the proposition that an amendment by substitution can have a retrospective effect and affect the vested rights of the parties if the provision is made retrospective either expressly or by necessary intendment. 59. Parliament has often used the legislative process of amendment by substitution in the context of reassessment provisions under the Income Tax Act. In S C Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas,^117 a Constitution Bench of this Court had to decide on the validity of the notices issued under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act 1922. In 1948, Section 34 of the Income Tax Act 1922 was substituted by a new provision which provided the following time limits: (i) eight years from the end of the year if there was omi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the government at all levels. The imposition of national and local lockdowns created difficulties for the common people, including litigants and assesses, to comply with their legal obligations. The COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing lockdowns required legislatures across the world to dynamically adapt their laws and policies to redress the difficulties faced by persons, entities, and governmental authorities.^122 The World Bank identified that persons and business entities faced severe financial situations characterised by a lack of cash or easily convertible-to-cash assets. It suggested that this would impact revenue collection because individuals and entities would not be in a position to pay the assessed taxes. Therefore, the World Bank advised deferral of tax filings and payment deadlines to allow individuals and business entities to cope with the crisis.^123 Many countries across the world have extended deadlines for filing tax returns.^124 63. TOLA extended the time limits for completion or compliance of certain actions under the specified Act, which fell for completion during the COVID-19 outbreak. The use of the expression "any" in Section 3(1) indicates that the relax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment year 2013-2014 under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime expired on 31 March 2020. TOLA extended the period for issuing notice until 30 June 2021, given the difficulties that arose because of the COVID-19 pandemic. 66. Section 3(1) of TOLA allowed the Central Government to specify by notification "such other date after the 31st day of March, 2021" as the time limit for completion or compliance of any action under the specified Acts. The provision also empowered the Central Government to specify different dates for completion or compliance of different actions. The notifications dated 31 March 2021 and 27 April 2021 extend the operation of TOLA by providing an extended time limit for completing actions under the Income Tax Act till 30 June 2021. 67. Section 2(1)(b)(ii) of TOLA defines 'specified Act' to include the Income Tax Act. After 1 April 2021, Section 2(1)(b)(ii) must be read to mean the Income Tax Act as amended by the Finance Act 2021. The substitution of Sections 147 to 151 will not affect the purpose of TOLA, which is, to provide relaxation of the time limit for completion or compliance of any actions falling for completion between 20 March 2020 and 31 March ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at if the amended provision is made applicable prospectively, it will frustrate the object and purpose of Section 153C. 71. Section 3(1) of TOLA contains a non obstante clause: "notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act." The legislative intention of including the non obstante clause is to remove any obstacles which may come in the way of the operation of the extension of the time limit till 31 March 2021 or such other date after 31 March 2021 specified by the Central Government. The purpose is to ensure that the full benefit of the relaxation should be provided to both the assesses and the Revenue to tide over the difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 72. The non obstante clause in Section 3(1) has to be read as controlling the provisions of the specified Acts, including the provisions of the Income Tax Act.^127 In the context of the issuance of a reassessment notice, the non obstante clause will override the provisions of the Income Tax Act in case of any direct conflict or inconsistency. Section 3(1) overrides Section 149 only to the extent of relaxing the time limit for issuance of reassessment notice under Section 148. The time limit for issuance of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner; and (b) no notice could be issued after the expiry of four years; and (ii) If income escaping was more than Rupees one lakh: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within four years after obtaining the approval of the Joint Commissioner; and (b) after four years but within six years after obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 75. After 1 April 2021, the new regime has specified different authorities for granting sanctions under Section 151. The new regime is beneficial to the assesse because it specifies a higher level of authority for the grant of sanctions in comparison to the old regime. Therefore, in terms of Ashish Agarwal (supra), after 1 April 2021, the prior approval must be obtained from the appropriate authorities specified under Section 151 of the new regime. The effect of Section 151 of the new regime is thus : (i) If income escaping assessment is less than Rupees fifty lakhs: (a) a reassessment notice could be issued within three years after obtaining the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner, or Principal Director or Commissioner or Directo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 78. For example, the three year time limit for assessment year 2017-2018 falls for completion on 31 March 2021. It falls during the time period of 20 March 2020 and 31 March 2021, contemplated under Section 3(1) of TOLA. Resultantly, the authority specified under Section 151(i) of the new regime can grant sanction till 30 June 2021. 79. Under Finance Act 2021, the assessing officer was required to obtain prior approval or sanction of the specified authorities at four stages: a. Section 148A(a) - to conduct any enquiry, if required, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; b. Section 148A(b) - to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee by serving upon them a show cause notice as to why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued based on the information that suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It must be noted that this requirement has been deleted by the Finance Act 2022;^129 c. Section 148A(d) - to pass an order deciding whether or not it is a fit case for issuing a notice under Section 148; and d. Section 148 - to issue a reassessment no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... render substantial justice in matters coming before it.^133 The expression "any cause or matter" mentioned under Article 142 includes every kind of proceeding pending before this Court.^134 Article 142 allows this Court to give precedence to equity over law, provided the exercise of the discretion is consistent with constitutional provisions and after due consideration of substantive provisions in statutory law.^135 83. In Prem Chand Garg v. The Excise Commissioner,^136 Justice P B Gajendragadkar (as the learned Chief Justice then was), speaking for the majority, observed that the order made by this Court under Article 142 "must not only be consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but it cannot even be inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the relevant statutory laws." However, in Union Carbide Corpn. Ltd. v. Union of India,^137 Justice Venkatachaliah (as the learned Chief Justice then was), speaking for the majority, clarified Prem Chand Garg (supra) by observing that ordinary laws cannot limit the constitutional powers of this Court under Article 142. The learned Judge further observed that in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustifies the existing legal landscape - the Constitution, statutes, rules, regulations, customs and common law. Where exclusive rule-based theories of law and adjudication are inadequate to explain either the functioning of the system or create a relief that ensures complete justice, it is necessary to supplement such a model with principles grounded in equitable standards. The power under Article 142 however is not limitless. It authorises the Court to pass orders to secure complete justice in the case before it. Article 142 embodies both the notion of justice, equity and good conscience as well as a supplementary power to the Court to effect complete justice." ( emphasis supplied ) 86. The exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 is meant to supplement the existing legal framework to do complete justice between the parties.^141 In a given circumstance, this Court can supplement a legal framework to craft a just outcome when strict adherence to a source of law and exclusive rulebased theories create inequitable results.^142 87. The directions issued by this Court under Article 142 cannot be considered as a ratio because they are issued based on the peculiar fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....writ petitions before the High Courts: "4. At this stage, it is required to be noted that approximately 90,000 such reassessment notices under Section 148 of the unamended Income Tax Act were issued by the Revenue after 1-4-2021, which were the subject-matter of more than 9000 writ petitions before various High Courts across the country and by different judgments and orders, the particulars of which are as above, the High Courts have taken a similar view and have set aside the respective reassessment notices issued under Section 148 on similar grounds." Further, this Court directed that its directions "shall be applicable PAN INDIA": "29. The present order shall be applicable PAN INDIA and all judgments and orders passed by the different High Courts on the issue and under which similar notices which were issued after 1-4-2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act are set aside and shall be governed by the present order and shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The present order is passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to avoid any further appeals by the Revenue on the very issue by challenging similar judgments ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pril 2021 are under challenge.^152 The Court mentioned the above three categories to clarify that the general nature of its directions will also give a quietus to the matters that have already been adjudicated or are pending adjudication before judicial forums. The operation of the directions cannot be limited to the above three categories, especially when this Court has specifically held that "the present order shall be applicable PAN INDIA." 93. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court was aware of the fact that it could not have used its jurisdiction under Article 142 to affect the vested rights of the assesses by deeming Section 148 notices under the old regime as Section 148 notices under the new regime. Hence, it deemed the reassessment notices issued under the old regime as show cause notices under Section 148A(b) of the new regime. Further, the Court directed the Revenue to provide all the relevant material or information to the assesses and thereafter allowed the assesses to respond to the show cause notice by availing all the defences, including those available under Section 149. Thus, the Court balanced the equities between the Revenue and the assesses by giving effect t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the state of facts which may not exist and then works out the consequences which flow from that state of facts. Such consequences have got to be worked out only to their logical extent having due regard to the purpose for which the legal fiction has been created. Stretching the consequences beyond what logically flows amounts to an illegitimate extension of the purpose of the legal fiction." 98. A legal fiction is created for a definite purpose and it should be limited to the purpose for which it is enacted or applied. It is a well-established principle of interpretation that the courts must give full effect to a legal fiction by having due regard to the purpose for which the legal fiction is created.^157 The consequences that follow the creation of the legal fiction "have got to be worked out to their logical extent."^158 The court has to assume all the facts and consequences that are incidental or inevitable corollaries to giving effect to the fiction.^159 99. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court created a legal fiction by deeming the Section 148 notices issued under the old regime as show cause notices under Section 148A(b) of the new regime. The purpose of the legal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....102. While creating the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court was cognizant of the fact that the assessing officers were effectively inhibited from performing their responsibility under Section 148A until the requirement of supply of relevant material and information to the assesses was fulfilled. This Court lifted the inhibition by directing the assessing officers to supply the assesses with the relevant material and information relied upon by the Revenue within thirty days from the date of the judgment. Thus, during the period between the issuance of the deemed notices and the date of judgment in Ashish Agarwal (supra), the assessing officers were deemed to have been prohibited from proceeding with the reassessment proceedings. 103. In VLS Finance Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax,^161 a two-Judge Bench of this Court was called upon to interpret Explanation 1 to Section 158BE of the Income Tax Act. Section 158BE provides the time limit for completion of block assessments. Explanation 1 to the provision excludes "period during which the assessment proceedings is stayed by an order or injunction of any court" from the period of limitation. This Court held that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the date of their issuance (somewhere from 1 April 2021 till 30 June 2021) till the date of decision in Ashish Agarwal (supra), that is, 4 May 2022. 106. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed the assessing officers to provide relevant information and materials relied upon by the Revenue to the assesses within thirty days from the date of the judgment. A show cause notice is effectively issued in terms of Section 148A(b) only if it is supplied along with the relevant information and material by the assessing officer. Due to the legal fiction, the assessing officers were deemed to have been inhibited from acting in pursuance of the Section 148A(b) notice till the relevant material was supplied to the assesses. Therefore, the show cause notices were deemed to have been stayed until the assessing officers provided the relevant information or material to the assesses in terms of the direction issued in Ashish Agarwal (supra). To summarize, the combined effect of the legal fiction and the directions issued by this Court in Ashish Agarwal (supra) is that the show cause notices that were deemed to have been issued during the period between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deemed notices, including issuance of reassessment notices under Section 148 of the new regime. The surviving or balance time limit can be calculated by computing the number of days between the date of issuance of the deemed notice and 30 June 2021. 109. If this Court had not created the legal fiction and the original reassessment notices were validly issued according to the provisions of the new regime, the notices under Section 148 of the new regime would have to be issued within the time limits extended by TOLA. As a corollary, the reassessment notices to be issued in pursuance of the deemed notices must also be within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. This construction gives full effect to the legal fiction created in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and enables both the assesses and the Revenue to obtain the benefit of all consequences flowing from the fiction.^164 110. The effect of the creation of the legal fiction in Ashish Agarwal (supra) was that it stopped the clock of limitation with effect from the date of issuance of Section 148 notices under the old regime [which is also the date of issuance of the deemed notices]. As discussed in the pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018. To assume jurisdiction to issue notices under Section 148 with respect to the relevant assessment years, an assessing officer has to: (i) issue the notices within the period prescribed under Section 149(1) of the new regime read with TOLA; and (ii) obtain the previous approval of the authority specified under Section 151. A notice issued without complying with the preconditions is invalid as it affects the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Therefore, the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 of the new regime, which are in pursuance of the deemed notices, ought to be issued within the time limit surviving under the Income Tax Act read with TOLA. A reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit will be timebarred. G. Conclusions 114. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that: a. After 1 April 2021, the Income Tax Act has to be read along with the substituted provisions; b. TOLA will continue to apply to the Income Tax Act after 1 April 2021 if any action or proceeding specified under the substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act falls for completion between 20 March 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Revenue are accordingly allowed. The appeals filed by the assesses will be governed by reasons discussed in this judgment. 117. The transfer petitions are disposed of. 118. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. FOOT NOTE 1 "Income Tax Act" 2 "TOLA" 3 Section 2(7), Income Tax Act. [It defines an "assessee" to mean "a person by whom any tax or any other sum of money is payable under this Act, and includes - (a) every person in respect of whom any proceeding under this Act has been taken for the assessment of his income or assessment of fringe benefits or of the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable, or of the loss sustained by him or by such other person, or of the amount of refund due to him or to such other person; (b) every person who is deemed to be an assessee under any provisions of this Act; (c) every person who is deemed to be an assessee in default under any provision of this Act;"] 4 Section 2(7A), Income Tax Act. [It defines an "assessing officer" to mean "the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director or Deputy Director or the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e expiry of twelve months specified in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 143, as it stood immediately before the amendment of said sub-section by the Finance Act, 2002 (20 of 2002) but before the expiry of the time limit for making the assessment, re-assessment or recomputation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice. Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in the first proviso or the second proviso shall apply to any return which has been furnished on or after the 1st day of October 2005 in response to a notice served under this section. (2) The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so."] 7 Section 149, Income Tax Act. [It reads: "149. Time limit for notice - (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,- (a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) or clause (c); (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself.] 9 Section 2(28C) of the Income Tax Act defines Joint Commissioner to mean "a person appointed to be a Joint Commissioner of Income-tax or an Additional Commissioner of Income-tax under sub-section (1) of section 117." 10 Section 2(34-A) of the Income Tax Act defines Principal Chief Commissioner of Income tax to mean "a person appointed to be a Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax under sub-section (1) of section 117." 11 Section 2(15A) of the Income Tax Act defines a Chief Commissioner to mean "a person appointed to a Chief Commissioner of Income tax or a Director General of Income tax or a Principal Chief Commissioner of Income tax or a Principal Director General of Income-tax under sub-section (1) of Section 117." 12 Section 2(16) defines Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to mean "a person appointed to be a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Income tax or a Principa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139: Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice. Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this section and section 148A, the information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment means,- (i) any information flagged in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the Board from time to time; (ii) any final objection raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to the effect that the assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year has not been made in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Explanation 2.-For t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the prior approval of specified authority, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less 21 Section 149, Income Tax Act. [It reads: 149.Time limit for notice - (1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,- (a) if three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b); (b) if three years, but not more than ten years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset, which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more for that year: Provided that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if such notice could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, within one month from the end of the month in which the reply referred to in clause (c) is received by him, or where no such reply is furnished, within one month from the end of the month in which time or extended time allowed to furnish a reply as per clause (b) expires: Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply in a case where,- (a) a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A in the case of the assessee on or after the 1st day of April, 2021; or (b) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized in a search under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A, in the case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, belongs to the assessee; or (c) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any books of account or documents, seized in a search under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A, in case of any other person on or af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvestment Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 1093; Mon Mohan Kohli v. ACIT, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5250; Sudesh Taneja v. ITO, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 937; Manoj Jain v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 1369. 26 Sudhesh Taneja (supra) [36] 27 Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra) [66]; Mon Mohan Kohli (supra) [66]; Tata Communications Transformation Services (supra) [34] 28 Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra) [80]; Sudesh Taneja (supra) [40]; Mon Mohan Kohli [49]; Tata Communications Transformation Services [49] 29 (2023) 1 SCC 617 30 Instruction No. 01/2022 dt. 11 May 2022 31 Jindal Stainless Ltd v. State of Haryana, (2017) 12 SCC 1 [17]; [310] 32 Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, (1992) 2 SCC 411 [10]; Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co., (2000) 5 SCC 694 [8] 33 Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCC 698 [20] 34 Mafatlal Industries Ltd v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 [25] 35 CCE v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd., (1972) 2 SCC 560 [19] 36 Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar, (1963) SCC OnLine SC 31 [12] 37 CIT v. B C Srinivasa Setty, (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OnLine SC 73 57 1964 SCC OnLine SC 112 [10] 58 S S Gadgil (supra) [10] 59 CIT v. Robert J Sas, (1963) 48 ITR 177; CIT v. Thayaballii Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi, 1967 SCC OnLine SC 352. 60 CIT v. Onkarmal Meghraj, (1974) 3 SCC 349 [11]; K M Sharma v. ITO, (2002) 4 SCC 339 [14]; M A Merchant (supra) [8] 61 Dr Premchandran Keezhoth v. Chancellor, Kannur University, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1592 [73] 62 CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633 [27]; State of U P v. Singhara Singh, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 23 [8] 63 Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, (2015) 11 SCC 628 [18] 64 1960 SCC OnLine SC 55 [6] 65 (1971) 1 SCC 453 [5] 66 Chhotobhai Jethabhai Patel v. Industrial Court, Maharashtra, (1972) 2 SCC 46 [16] 67 Superintendent of Taxes v. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust, (1976) 1 SCC 766 [28] 68 Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B D Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230 [37] 69 CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd, (2010) 2 SCC 723 [6]. ["6. [...] Reassessment has to be based on the fulfilment of certain precondition [...]"] 70 Banarsi Debi v. ITO, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 48 [6] 71 Punjab Land De....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Bombay, (1954) 2 SCC 345 [16] 102 Ratan Lal Adukia v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCC 537 [18] 103 Pradeep S Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62 [69] 104 Municipal Council Palai v. T J Joseph, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 55 [10] 105 State of M P v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 389 [15] 106 Harshad S Mehta v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 257 [31] 107 (1996) 5 SCC 626 108 (1952) 2 SCC 1 109 "Detention Act 1950" 110 Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K Rangappa Baliga & Co., (1969) 1 SCC 255 [8] 111 Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India, 1988 Supp SCC 30 [17] 112 State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal, (1996) 5 SCC 60 [9] 113 Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 566 [13] 114 G V Krishnamraju v. Union of India, (2019) 17 SCC 590 [18]; Ram Narain v. Simla Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd, 1956 SCC OnLine SC 1. [It was observed: 7. [...] whenever an amended Act has to be applied subsequent to the date of the amendment the various unamended provisions of the Act have to be read along with the amended provisions as though they ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cribe." 132 Jose Da Costa v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim, (1976) 2 SCC 917 [37] 133 Ganga Bishan v. Jai Narain, (1986) 1 SCC 75 [5] 134 Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406 [50] 135 Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544 [12] 136 1962 SCC OnLine SC 37 137 (1991) 4 SCC 584 [83] 138 (1998) 4 SCC 409 [47. [...] It, however, needs to be remembered that the powers conferred on the Court by Article 142 being curative in nature cannot be construed as powers which authorise the Court to ignore the substantive rights of a litigant while dealing with a cause pending before it. This power cannot be used to "supplant" substantive law applicable to the case or cause under consideration of the Court. Article 142, even with the width of its amplitude, cannot be used to build a new edifice where none existed earlier, by ignoring express statutory provisions dealing with a subject and thereby to achieve something indirectly which cannot be achieved directly.] 139 (2024) 6 SCC 267 140 (2020) 1 SCC 1 [1023] 141 Vinay Chandra Mishra, In re, (1995) 2 SC....