Sudesh Taneja v. ITO

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 148

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• S. 148: Reassessment – Notice-Constitutional validity – The delegation authorized being only for the purpose of enlarging limitation under a valid law, such delegation could not be exercised to resurrect the provision of law that stood omitted from the statute book by virtue of its substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021 – Reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the Act are quashed-It is left open to the assessing authority to initiate – re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 after making due compliance as required under the law. [S. 147, 148A, 149, 151, 151A, 153, 292 Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), S. 3(1) of the Act 38 of 2020, Art. 226] It was held that as a piece of delegated legislation the notifications issued in exercise of such powers, had to be within the…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 Sudesh Taneja Wife Of Shri C P Taneja, Residing At 58, Cosmo Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302021 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jaipur Having Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302005 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110011 Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents connected with 1.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9012/2021 Gopal Das Sonkia, S/o Late Shri Bhagwan Das Khandelwal ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Respondent 2.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10483/2021 Usha Golcha W/o Shri Surendra Kumar Golcha ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Respondent 3.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10485/2021 Mukesh Kapoor S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Kapoor ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Respondent 4.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14533/2021 Anand Kumar Modi S/o Gajanand Modi ----Petitioner Versus Office Of The Income Tax Officer ----Respondent (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 03:05:30 PM)

(2 of 113) [CW-969/2022] 5.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14704/2021 Prahalad Rai Rathi (Huf) ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 6.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14706/2021 Sh. Krishan Kumar Parwal ----Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Respondent 7.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14707/2021 Smt. Sulochana Agrawal ----Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Respondent 8.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15174/2021 Sh. Modh. Rafiq S/o Sh. Adhul Kayyum Khan ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 9.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15177/2021 Giriraj Singh Hada S/o Late Mahraj Tejraj Singh Ji ----Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 10.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 181/2022 Inderjit Sahni W/o Surendra Pal Singh Sahni ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 11.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 301/2022 Praveen Sharma S/o Late R.c. Sharma ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 03:05:30 PM)

(3 of 113) [CW-969/2022] ----Respondent 12.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 419/2022 Sanjeev Singh Chodhri Son Of Shri Bhanwar Singh ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 13.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 508/2022 Preeti Bakshi Wife Of Dr. Sandeep Bakshi ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Respondent 14.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 527/2022 Stilokraft ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 15.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 561/2022 Preeti Bakshi Wife Of Dr. Sandeep Bakshi ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Respondent 16.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 575/2022 Abdul Basit S/o Mr. Abdul Baqul ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 17.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 590/2022 Mohammed Salim Maniyar S/o Shri Abdul Maniyar ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 18.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 595/2022 Mohammed Salim Maniyar S/o Shri Abdul Maniyar ----Petitioner Versus (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 03:05:30 PM)

(4 of 113) [CW-969/2022] Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 19.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 597/2022 Mohammed Rafik Maniyar S/o Shri Mohammed Salim Maniyar ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 20.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 600/2022 Mrs. Ursula Joshi Wife And Legal Heir Of Late Mr. Rajendra Kumar Joshi ----Petitioner Versus Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Jcit) ----Respondent 21.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 611/2022 Raj Kumar Agarwal S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop Agarwal ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 22.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 627/2022 Parasram Lalwani Son Of Shri Govind Ram ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 23.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 651/2022 Preeti Bakshi Wife Of Dr. Sandeep Bakshi ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Respondent 24.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 685/2022 Kanti Prasad Sharma Son Of Shri Narottam Prasad Sharma ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 25.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 888/2022 B. Lodha Securities Limited (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 03:05:30 PM)

(5 of 113) [CW-969/2022] ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Respondent 26.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 909/2022 Mahendra Kumar Gangwal Huf ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 27.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 918/2022 Savita Pareek W/o Ravikant Purohit ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 28.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 953/2022 Vinod Kumar Bumb S/o Shri Ratan Lal Bumb ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 29.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 996/2022 Mani Kant Garg, S/o Bhanwar Lal Garg ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent 30.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8311/2021 Vinod Kumar Roongta, S/o Shri Anandilal Roongta ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Respondent 31.D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8480/2021 Nirmal Industries Private Limited ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissiner Of Income Tax ----Respondent (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 03:05:30 PM)

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

(88 of 113) [CW-969/2022] 23. In background of such facts and statutory provisions applicable the learned counsel for the assessee had raised following contentions:- (i) Upon enactment of the Finance Act, 2021 the provisions contained in the Act pertaining to reassessment of income stood substituted by new set of provisions. Upon such substitution the old provisions ceased to exist. There is no indication either in express terms or implied in the newly introduced provisions that the legislature desired to retain the old provisions for the past period. In that view of the matter any action of issuance of notice for reassessment which is taken after 01.04.2021, must be in accordance with the amended provisions.

(91 of 113) [CW-969/2022] in case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra)4 has ruled in favour of the assessee making following observations:- “64. As to the first line of reasoning applied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as noted above, there can be no exception to the principle – an Act of legislative substitution is a composite act. Thereby, the legislature chooses to put in place another or, replace an existing provision of law. It involves simultaneous omission and re-enactment. By its very nature, once a new provision has been put in place of a pre-existing provision, the earlier provision cannot survive, except for things done or already undertaken to be done or things expressly saved to be done.

Revenue / respondent submissions

(v) It was lastly contended that the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of BPIP Infra Private Limited (supra) 2 has committed no error in allowing the writ petitions relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal (supra)3. 24. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the revenue strongly opposed these petitions and pressed for allowing their appeals. They contended that the substitution of old provisions for reopening of assessment would not obliterate the previous set of statutory provisions. They would continue to have effect for the past period. In other words, if the notice for reopening of assessment was issued for any period prior to 01.04.2021, the provisions as they stood at the relevant time would apply.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

(89 of 113) [CW-969/2022] statutory provisions which had lapsed. The explanations contained in the notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 are thus ultra vires the powers of the subordinate legislation and therefore unconstitutional. (iv) It was contended that 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 two Divisions Benches of Allahabad and Delhi High Courts have already decided these issues in favour of the assessees. Being the panIndia legislation in the field of taxation, the Court should strive to achieve consistency. The view adopted by two Division Benches should therefore appeal to the Court.

(90 of 113) [CW-969/2022] unprecedented and has arisen on account on account of spread of corona virus. This unprecedented situation required taking extraordinary measures. The Relaxation Ordinance, 2020 and Relaxation Act, 2020 were therefore framed giving extension of time limits for taking actions and making compliances. These extensions were for the benefit of both, actions that had to be taken by the revenue as well as compliances which had to be made by the assessees. The assessees cannot take advantage of the unusual circumstances prevailing on account of spread of corona virus. The CBDT therefore in exercise of powers conferred in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020, has issued necessary explanation which merely clarifies which statutory provisions any way provide. This explanation makes explicit what is otherwise implicit under the Act. The same is well within the power of the Government. 25. Two questions of law which arise for our consideration are as under:- (i) Whether after introduction of new provisions for reassessment of income by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021, substituting the then existing provisions, would the substituted provisions survive and could be used for issuing notices for reassessment for the past period? (ii) Whether the explanations contained in the CBDT circulars dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 are legal and valid? 26. At the outset we may note how other High Courts have viewed this situation. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 03:05:31 PM)

In absence of any express saving clause and, since no reassessment proceeding had been initiated prior to the Act of legislative substitution, the second aspect of the matter does not require any further examination. 65. Therefore, other things apart, undeniably, on 01.04.2021, by virtue of plain/unexcepted effect of Section 1(2)(a) of the Finance Act, 2021, the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 149, 151 (as those provisions existed upto 31.03.2021), stood substituted, along with a new provision enacted by way of Section 148A of that Act. In absence of any saving clause, to save the pre-existing (and now substituted) provisions, the revenue authorities could only initiate reassessment proceeding on or after 01.04.2021, in accordance with the substituted law and not the pre-existing laws.

As a fact, no jurisdiction had been assumed by the assessing authority against any of the petitioners, under the unamended law. Hence, no time extension could ever be made under section 3(1) of the Enabling Act, read with the Notifications issued thereunder. 68. The submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General of India that the provision of Section 3(1) of the Enabling Act gave an overriding effect to that Act and therefore saved the provisions as existed under the unamended law, also cannot be accepted. That saving could arise only if jurisdiction had been validly assumed before the date 01.04.2021. In the first place Section 3(1) of the Enabling Act does not speak of saving any provision of law.

It only provides a general relaxation of limitation granted on account of general hardship existing upon the spread of pandemic COVID -19. After enforcement of the Finance Act, 2021, it applies to the substituted provisions and not the pre-existing provisions. 72. Reference to reassessment proceedings with respect to pre-existing and now substituted provisions of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act has been introduced only by the later Notifications issued under the Act. Therefore, the validity of those provisions is also required to be examined. We have concluded as above, that the provisions of Sections 147, 148, 148A, 149, 150 and 151 substituted the old/preexisting provisions of the Act w.e.f.

This was real object and purpose of the enactment of Sub-section (2) and the interpretation of this sub-section must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose. We must therefore accept as the underlying assumption of Sub-section (2) that there is under-statement of consideration in respect of the transfer and Sub- (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 03:05:31 PM)

Operative decision and relief

Income Tax Officer (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13297/2021), reported in 2021 (12) TMI 207, in which relying on a decision of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India through its Revenue Secretary North Block And Ors. (Writ Tax Petition No.524/2021), dated 30.09.2021, reported in 2021(10) TMI 517, the learned Single Judge had quashed the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act. 4. Since material facts emerging from the record are undisputable and since the outcome of this litigation depends on pure questions of law, we have proceeded to hear these petitions and appeals finally without waiting for the replies of the department on factual aspects.

(113 of 113) [CW-969/2022] The date of such amendments coming into effect remained 01.04.2021. 42. In the result we find that the notices impugned in the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law. The same are quashed and set aside. The learned Single Judge committed no error in quashing these notices. All the writ petitions are allowed. Appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Pending applications if any stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR (Downloaded on 28/01/2022 at 03:05:31 PM)

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Sudesh Taneja v. ITO concerns s. 148: reassessment – notice-constitutional validity – the delegation authorized being only for the purpose of enlarging limitation under a valid law, such delegation could not be exercised to resurrect the provision of law that stood omitted from the statute book by virtue of its substitution made by the finance act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021 – reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the act are quashed-it is left open to the assessing authority to initiate – re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the act, as amended by the finance act, 2021 after making due compliance as required under the law. [s. 147, 148a, 149, 151, 151a, 153, 292 relaxation of certain provisions) act, 2020 (tola), s. 3(1) of the act 38 of 2020, art. 226] it was held that as a piece of delegated legislation the notifications issued in exercise of such powers, had to be within the… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Quashed / set aside” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: S. 148: Reassessment – Notice-Constitutional validity – The delegation authorized being only for the purpose of enlarging limitation under a valid law, such delegation could not be exercised to resurrect the provision of law that stood omitted from the statute book by virtue of its substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021 – Reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the Act are quashed-It is left open to the assessing authority to initiate – re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 after making due compliance as required under the law. [S. 147, 148A, 149, 151, 151A, 153, 292 Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), S. 3(1) of the Act 38 of 2020, Art. 226] It was held that as a piece of delegated legislation the notifications issued in exercise of such powers, had to be within the… Its practical value lies in the way the Rajasthan High Court connected the governing provisions—148—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of 148 and the decision date 2022-01-27; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Sudesh Taneja v. ITO, the proceeding is D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022, and the decision is dated 2022-01-27. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Chief Justice Akil Kureshi; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sameer Jain. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with 148. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Quashed / set aside. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• 148 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• Shree Arihant Oil & General Mills v. UOI — Rajasthan High Court · Quashed / set aside
• Late Shobha Mehta through Legal Heir Kanhaiya Lal Mehta v. ACIT — Rajasthan High Court · Quashed / set aside
• Divya Capital One (P) Ltd. v. ACIT — Delhi High Court · Quashed / set aside
• ITO (Exemption) v. Innovative Welfare and Educational Society — ITAT Delhi · Quashed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 592 judgments
• Explore Reassessment & Reopening

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY