The main legal point established is that the new provisions for reassessment of income introduced by the Finance Act, 2021, would apply to notices for reassessment for the past years, and the explanations in the CBDT circulars were declared unconstitutional and invalid.

JUDGMENT

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard at this stage.

2. The writ petition arising out of the impugned notice involves the same issue.

3. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for various assessment years.

4. The notice was issued after 01.04.2021 and pertain to the relevant period which is prior to the said date.

5. The issue involved in the writ petition is no more res integra as the same has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding a batch of petitions with the lead case of "Sudesh Tanesh v. Income Tax Officer in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.969/2022". At the time of hearing of the identical petitions, this Court formulated the following two questions of law for consideration as under:

1. 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 years?

2. Whether the explanations contained in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short 'the CBDT') circular dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 are legal and valid?

5. After hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the Department of Income Tax as well as the counsel appearing for the asseessee, the Co-ordinate Bench disposed of the identical D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.969/2022 titled as "Sudesh Tanesh v. Income Tax Officer" along-with the connected matters vide judgment dated 27.01.2022 by observing that:-

"36. It can thus be seen that original provisions upon their substitution stood repealed for all purposes and had no existence after introduction of the substituting provisions. We may refer to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which provides inter-alia that where the State Act or Central Act or regulation repeals any enactment then unless a different intention appears repeal shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect or affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder. Under the circumstances after substitution unless there is any intention discernible in the scheme of statute either pre-existing or newly introduced, the substituted provisions would not survive.

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 indicat