SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
AKIL KURESHI, SUDESH BANSAL, JJ.
Dinesh Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal – Petitioner
Versus
Income Tax Officer, Sikar – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2125 of 2022
Decided On : 08-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Sharma.
For the Respondents: Mr. Nikhil Simlote, Mr. R.B. Mathur.

Headnote:

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 148A , 148A and 149(1) - Income Tax - Notice of reassessment - Challenged - Assessing Officer to make enquiry with respect to material suggesting that income has escaped assessment, issuance of notice to assessee calling upon why notice under Section 148 should not be issued and passing an order considering material available on record including response of assessee if made while deciding whether case is fit for issuing notice under Section 148 - There is absolutely no indication in all these provisions which would suggest that legislature intended that new scheme of reopening of assessments would be applicable only to period post - In absence of any such indication all notices which were issued after had to be in accordance with such provisions - Whether explanation in guise of clarification can change very basis of statutory provisions – Held, subordinate legislation could not have travelled beyond powers vested in Government of India by parent Act - If plain meaning of the statutory provision and its interpretation is clear, by adopting a position different in an explanation and describing it to be clarificatory, subordinate legislature cannot be permitted to amend provisions of parent Act - Accordingly, these explanations are unconstitutional and declared as invalid - Court are unable to persuade ourselves to accept this analysis of situation - In Court understanding by virtue of notifications dated issued by CBDT substitution of reassessment provisions framed under Finance Act, 2021 were not deferred nor could they have been deferred - Date of such amendments coming into effect remained - Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged a notice of reassessment dated 19.04.2021 for the assessment year 2015-16. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the assessing officer has applied the old provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing notice and the procedure prescribed under Section 148A of the Act which was inserted with effect from 01.04.2021 has not been followed.

2. Under similar circumstances in a judgment dated 27.01.2022 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022, Sudesh Taneja vs. Income Tax Officer and Another, connected matters, we had quashed the reassessment notices making following observations:

    “37. In this context we have perused the provisions of reassessment contained in the Finance Act, 2021. We have noticed earlier the major departure that the new scheme of reassessment has made under these provisions. The time limits for issuing notice for reassessment have been changed. 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 substitution. In fact there are strong indications to the contrary. We may recall, that time limits for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act have been modified under substituted Section 149. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 reduces such period to three years instead of originally prevailing four years under normal circumstances. Clause (b) extends the upper limit of six years previously prevailing to ten years in cases where income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to 50 lacs or more. Sub-section (1) of Section 149 thus contracts as well as expands the time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 depending on the question whether the case falls under clause (a) or clause (b). In this context the first proviso to Section 149(1) provides that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021 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 Section 149 as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. As per this proviso thus no notice under Section 148 would be issued for the past assessment years by resorting to the larger period of limitation prescribed in newly substituted clause (b) of Section 149(1). This would indicate that the notice that would be issued after 01.04.2021 would be in terms of the substituted Section 149(1) but without breaching the upper time limit provided in the original Section 149(1) which stood substituted. This aspect has also been highlighted in the memorandum explaining the proposed provisions in the Finance Bill. If according to the revenue for past period provisions of section 149 before amendment were applicable, this first

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top