2022 Supreme(Raj) 2475
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal, JJ.
Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (4), Jaipur & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Pinkcity Brokerage Services Private Limited & Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ Nos. 346/2022, 347/2022, 348/2022, 349/2022, 350/2022, 351/2022, 352/2022, 357/2022, 358/2022, 367/2022, 376/2022, 404/2022 and 405/2022
Decided On : 21-02-2022
Anuroop Singhi, Advocate, for the Appellant
The new scheme of reassessment under the Finance Act, 2021 applies to notices issued after 01.04.2021, and explanations provided in notifications must be within the confines of the powers vested in the government.
Headnote:
reassessment - Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 148, Section 148A, Section 149 - The court discussed the provisions of reassessment contained in the Finance Act, 2021, highlighting the major departure from the previous scheme. It emphasized that the new scheme of reassessment applies to notices issued after 01.04.2021, and the extended time limits for issuing notice under Section 148 do not change this position. The court also analyzed the explanations provided in the notifications of CBDT dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021, declaring them unconstitutional and invalid. The court concluded that the impugned notices were invalid and quashed them, dismissing the appeals of the revenue.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed by the revenue to challenge the decisions of the learned Single Judges quashing reassessment notices issued by the respective assessing officers. The notices were issued after 01.04.2021 for past assessment periods without applying the substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reassessment by the Finance Act, 2021.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notices impugned in the respective petitions were invalid and bad in law, quashing and setting them aside. The appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of reassessment notices issued after 01.04.2021 without applying the substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reassessment by the Finance Act, 2021, and the explanations provided in the notifications of CBDT dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the new scheme of reassessment applies to notices issued after 01.04.2021, and the extended time limits for issuing notice under Section 148 do not change this position. It also declared the explanations in the notifications of CBDT unconstitutional and invalid.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and quashed the impugned notices, finding them invalid and bad in law.
JUDGMENT
1. All defects shall be removed within two weeks.
2. All these appeals are filed by the revenue to challenge the decisions of the learned Single Judges quashing reassessment notice issued by the respective assessing officers. The common factor in these appeals is that all such notices were issued after 01.04.2021 for the past assessment periods but without applying the substituted provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reassessment by the Finance Act, 2021. One such lead case decided by the Single Judge in BPIP Infra Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13297/2021) came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in case of Sudesh Taneja v. Income Tax Officer and Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022). The Division Bench was considering writ petitions as well as appeals filed by the revenue against the judgment of Single Judge in case of BPIP Infra Private Limited (supra). All the proceedings were disposed of by a common judgment 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