WRIT PETITION NO.1334 OF 2021 1 This writ petition, along with other writ petitions listed today, have been filed by various assessees to challenge initiation of assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for different assessment years. All notices in these petitions for initiation of assessment proceedings have been issued after 1st April 2021. 2 Since substantial questions of law were involved, interim protection has been granted. Revenue has also filed reply in many petitions and many petitioners have also filed rejoinder. Since issues were identical, we did not insist on the Revenue filing a reply in each of the petitions. 3 The cause of action of dispute arising in all these writ petitions purely being legal, i.e., on the validity of the assessment proceedings initiated against assessees after 1st April 2021 under the provisions of the Act, as it existed before 1st April 2021, read with the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (the Relaxation Act) and the notifications issued thereunder, the peculiar facts or pleadings of each case, in our view, are not material to the adjudication of the issues involved.

4 We have heard the counsels led by Mr. Mistri, Mr. Pardiwalla, Mr. Andhyarujina and Mr. Chatterji for petitioners and Mr. Anil Singh, Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 18/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the Revenue. 5 Before we took up this matter, various High Courts have considered identical issue and except a Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja V/s. Union of India and Ors. 1, all other Courts have held that the notices, as issued by respondents under Section 148 of the Act post 1st April 2021, are bad in law. The other Courts, which have considered this issue, are the High Court of Allahabad (Division Bench) in Ashok Kumar Agarwal V/s. Union of India 2, High Court of Delhi (Division Bench) in Mon Mohan Kohli V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.3, High Court of Rajasthan (Single Judge) in Bpip Infra (P.) Ltd. V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Jaipur4 and High Court of Calcutta in Bagaria Properties and Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. V/s. Union of India and Ors.5 and Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Taneja V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Jaipur and Anr. 6 and High Court of Madras (Division Bench) in Vellore Institute of Technology V/s. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Anr.7 6 The provisions for reassessment to reopen the assessment under certain circumstances was amended by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 1st April 2021. Prior thereto, under Section 147 of the Act, the

1. 2021 (438) ITR 622

2. (2021) 131 taxmann.com 22 (Allahabad)

3. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 166 (Delhi)

4. (2021) 133 taxmann.com 48 (Rajasthan)

5. W.P.O. No.244 of 2021 dated 17.01.2022

6. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.969 of 2022 pronounced on 27.01.2022

7. Writ Petition No.15019 of 2021 dated 04.02.2022 Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 19/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc Assessing Officer, if he had reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for any assessment year, he could, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153 of the Act, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which had escaped assessment. As per Section 148 of the Act, before making such assessment or reassessment under Section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer had to serve a notice on the assessee requiring him to furnish the return of his income. Sub-section (2) of Section 148 provided that the Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice, record his reasons for doing so. 7 As per sub-section (1) of Section 149 read with Section 147 of the Act, if the assessment has been completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, no notice under Section 148 of the Act could be issued beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment and in any case, no such notice could be issued beyond a period of six years from the end of relevant assessment year. 8 Section 151 of the Act pertained to sanction for issuance of notice. Sub-section (1) of Section 151 of the Act provides that no such notice could be issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Assessing Officer after expiry of a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 20/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc year unless the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it was a fit case for issuance of such notice. As per sub-section (2) of Section 151 of the Act, in a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no notice could be issued by the Assessing Officer who is below the rank of Joint Commissioner unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer that it is a case fit for issuance of notice. Section 153 of the Act contained provisions for time limit for completion of assessments and reassessments. In nutshell, this was the scheme for reassessment that existed prior to the amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 . 9 The entire scheme of reassessment underwent major changes under the Finance Act, 2021 and the amendments have been brought into with effect from 1st April 2021. Section 147 of the Act, as it stands now, provides that if any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, the Assessing Officer may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153 of the Act, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year. The distinction between the cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the failure of the assessee to disclose truly or fully all material facts and the rest is a thing of the past.

assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 of the Act and subject to the provisions of Section 148A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to serve on the assessee a notice along with a copy of the order passed if required under clause - (d) of Section 148A of the Act requiring him to furnish the return within the specified time and in prescribed form. The proviso to Section 148 of the Act provides that no notice shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority for issuing such notice. What "information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment" means has been provided in Explanation (1) to Section 148 of the Act. Situations where the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to have information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is listed in Explanation (2) to Section 148 of the Act.

11 Section 148A is newly inserted and it pertains to conducting enquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act and it reads as under:-

Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 23/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, specified authority means the specified authority referred to in section

12 As per this newly introduced provision, before issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer may conduct any enquiry if required with the prior approval of the specified authority with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer has to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by serving on him a notice to show cause within the specified time which shall not be less than seven days but not exceeding 30 days from the date of issue of notice but which can be extended by him on an application by the assessee. Such notice would be to call upon the assessee why a notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. As per clause - (c), the Assessing Officer has to consider the reply of the assessee furnished, if any, in response to such notice. As per clause - (d), the Assessing Officer would decide on the basis of material available on record including the reply of the asssessee whether or not the case is fit for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, for which purpose he would pass an order with the prior approval of the specified authority within one month from the end of the month in which the reply from the assessee is received by him and where no such reply is furnished, within one month from the end of the month in which time or extended Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 24/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc time for furnishing reply expires. Proviso to Section 148A of the Act lists the cases where this procedure would not apply. As per the explanation to Section 148A of the Act, the specified authority means the authority referred to in Section 151 of the Act.

13 Section 149 of the Act also underwent major changes as regards time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. Section 149 now reads as under :

14 As per sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, as it stands now, time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act is three years from the end of relevant assessment year unless the case falls under clause - (b) where the period available for issuing such notice is ten years. Clause - (b) applies to cases where the Assessing Officer has in his possession books of accounts 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 total of Rs.50 lakhs or more. Explanation to Section 149 of the Act provides that for the purpose of clause - (b) the asset shall include immovable property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.

has also been amended. As per the amended provisions, the specified authority for the purposes of Sections 148 and 148A of the Act would be

(i) Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director, if three years or less than three years have elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year and (ii) Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General, if more than three years have elapsed from the end of relevant assessment year. 16 Section 153 of the Act containing time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation has also been amended. The time limits have been shortened.

17 When we compare the existing and the substituted provisions, the time limit of four years for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act in normal cases and six years in cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts under the old Section 148 of the Act is history and fresh time limits have been prescribed. Under the amended Section 147 of the Act, new time limits provided are three years unless income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, amounts to or is likely to amount Rs.50 lakhs or more and in which case, the time limit for Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 27/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act applicable would be ten years from the end of relevant assessment year.

The Assessing Officer has reason to believe, as previously referred to Section 147 of the Act, has been done away with and the proviso to Section 148 of the Act, as it stands now, provides no notice for the reassessment would be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

18 The major change under the new regime of reassessment is introduction of Section 148A of the Act. This section in a way codifies the procedure prescribed in the well known case of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. V/s. Income Tax Officer 8. Clause - (a) of Section 148A of the Act permits the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of the specified authority with respect to the information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Clause - (b) of Section 148A of the Act requires the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by issuing notice calling upon him why notice under Section 148 of the Act should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Clause - (c) requires the Assessing Officer to consider the reply of the assessee, if furnished. As per clause - (d), the

8. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 28/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc Assessing Officer would decide on the basis of material available on record and if reply is furnished, whether it is a fit case for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act.

Thus, the assessee even has an opportunity to oppose even issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act and he could legitimately expect the Assessing Officer to provide him the information which according to him suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 19 Much before the Finance Act, 2021 was perhaps even conceived, sometime in March 2020 the country was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic that led to nationwide strict lockdowns putting the lives of citizens and the Government machinery totally out of gear. It became almost impossible for individuals as well as Government authorities to adhere to several statutory time limits which in many cases were not extendable. To overcome these difficulties, particularly in the context of tax collections, the Government of India introduced the Relaxation Act as an ordinance and then later it was replaced by the Act. As an ordinance, it was only relaxation of certain provisions but when it became an Act, it became relaxation and amendment of certain provisions. The Act provided for specified Acts which were defined under Section 2 and it included the Act, i.e., Income Tax Act, 1961 . Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Ordinance, 2020 provided that any time limit in the specified Acts, which fell during the period from 20th March 2020 to 29th June 2020 or such other Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 29/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc date after 29th June 2020 as the Central Government may by notification specify for completion or compliance of the action and where such completion and compliance had not been made within the time, then the time limit for such purpose notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Act would stand extended to 30th June 2020 or such other date after 30th June 2020 as the Central Government may by notification specify in this behalf. The Relaxation Act, which replaced the ordinance with effect from 29th September 2020, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 provided that the time limits specified in the specified Acts, which fell during the period from 20th March 2020 to 31st December 2020 or such other date after 31st December 2020 as the Central Government may notify, were extended to 31st March 2021 or such other date after 31 st March 2021 as the Central Government may by notification specify. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Specified Act, such extension would operate. 20 In exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, the Government of India through the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a Notification No.20 of 2021 dated 31 st March 2021 and extended, besides others, time limit for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. The said notification reads as under:

149 or sanction under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, --

(i) the 31st day of March, 2021 shall be the end date of the period during which the time-limit, specified in, or prescribed or notified under, the Income-tax Act falls for the completion of such action; and

(ii) the 30th day of April, 2021 shall be the end date to which the time-limit for the completion of such action shall stand extended.

Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of issuance of notice under section 148 as per time-limit specified in section 149 or sanction under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, under this sub-clause, the provisions of section 148 , section 149 and section 151 of the Income-tax Act, as the case may be, as they stood as on the 31st day of March 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021 , shall apply.

(b) the compliance of any action referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act relates to intimation of Aadhaar number to the prescribed authority under sub-section (2) of section 139AA of the Income-tax Act, the time-limit for compliance of such action shall stand extended to the 30th day of June, 2021.

(B) where the specified Act is the Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act ) and the completion of any action referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act relates to sending an intimation under sub-section (1) of section 168 of Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 31/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc the Finance Act, --

(i) the 31st day of March, 2021 shall be the end date of the period during which the time-limit, specified in, or prescribed or notified under, the Finance Act falls for the completion of such action; and

(ii) the 30th day of April, 2021 shall be the end date to which the time-limit for the completion of such action shall stand extended.

[Notification No. 20/2021/F. No. 370142/35/2020-TPL] SHEFALI SINGH, Under Secy., Tax Policy and Legislation Division Note : The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 , Sub-section (ii) vide S.O. No. 4805 dated 31 st December, 2020.

(emphasis supplied) 21 This was followed by another Notification No.38 of 2021 dated 27th April 2021 and later a Notification No.74 of 2021 dated 25 th June 2021. Notification Nos.20 of 2021 and 38 of 2021 are the impugned notifications. Notification No.38 of 2021 and 74 of 2021 read as under :

* Explanation.9-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of issuance of notice under section 148 as per time-limit specified in section 149 or sanction under section 151 of the Income-tax Act, under this sub-clause, the provisions of section 148 , section 149 and section 151 of the Income-tax Act, as the case may be, as they stood as on the 31 st day of March 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021 , shall apply. (B) where the specified Act is the Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act ) and the completion of any action, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, relates to sending an intimation under sub- section (1) of section 168 of the Finance Act, and the time limit for completion of such action expires on the 30 th day of April, 2021 due to its extension by the said notifications, such time limit shall further stand extended to the 30th day of June, 2021.

9. * This explanation is also under challenge.

[Notification No. 38 /2021/ F. No. 370142/35/2020-TPL] RAJESH KUMAR BHOOT, Jt. Secy. Tax Policy & Legislation Division Note : The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 , Sub- section (ii) vide S.O. No. 4805 dated 31st December, 2020.

(emphasis supplied) Notification No.74/2021 dated 25th June 2021 MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 25th June, 2021 S.O. 2580(E).--In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (38 of 2020) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), and in partial modification of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue) No. 93/2020 dated the 31st December, 2020, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3 , Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O. 4805(E), dated the 31st December, 2020 and No. 10/2021 dated the 27th February, 2021, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3 , Sub- section (ii),vide number S.O. 966(E) dated the 27 th February, 2021 and No. 20/2021 dated the 31st March, 2021, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3 , Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O 1432(E) dated the 31st March, 2021 and No. 38/2021 dated 27th April, 2021, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3 , Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O. 1703(E) dated the 27th April, 2021, (hereinafter referred to as the said notifications), the Central Government hereby specifies for the purpose of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, that, -- (A) where the specified Act is the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Income-tax Act ) and,--

(i) the completion of any action, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, relates to passing of any order ,-

(a) for assessment or reassessment under the Income-tax Act , and the time limit for completion of such action under section 153 or section 153B thereof, expires on the 30th day of June, 2021 due to its extension by the said notifications, such time limit shall further stand extended to the 30th day of September, 2021;

(b) for imposition of penalty under Chapter XXI of the Income-tax Act ,--

(i) the 29th day of September, 2021 shall be the end date of the period during which the time limit specified in, or prescribed or notified under, the Income-tax Act falls for the completion of such action; and

(ii) the 30th day of September, 2021 shall be the end date to which the time limit for completion of such action shall stand extended;

(ii) the compliance of any action, referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, relates to intimation of Aadhaar number to the prescribed authority under sub-section (2) of section 139AA of the Income-tax Act, the time-limit for such the compliance of such action shall stand extended to the 30th day of September, 2021; (B) where the specified Act is the Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act ) and the completion of any action, referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, relates to sending an intimation under sub- section (1) of section 168 of the Finance Act, and the time limit for completion of such action expires on the 30 th June, 2021 due to its extension by the said notifications, such time limit shall further stand extended to the 30th day of September, 2021.

[Notification No. 74/2021/ F. No. 370142/35/2020-TPL] SHEFALI SINGH, Under Secy., Tax Policy and Legislation Division Note : The principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3 , Sub- section (ii) vide S.O.No. 4805(E) dated 31 st December, 2020 and was last amended vide S.O.1703(E) dated 27th April,2021.

to 30th April 2021. Under Notification No.38 of 2021, the time limit for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act was extended to 30th June 2021. 23 In background of these facts and statutory provisions, the contentions raised in the petitions are :

By way of explanation, the subordinate legislature cannot revive the statutory provisions which had lapsed. The explanations contained in the Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 36/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc notifications dated 31st March 2021 and 27th April 2021 are thus ultra vires the powers of the subordinate legislation and therefore, unconstitutional;

(d) 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 Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court, Madras High Court and a single Judge of Calcutta High Court have already decided these issues in favour of the assessees. Being pan-India legislation in the field of taxation, the Court should strive to achieve consistency. The view adopted by these Courts, should, therefore, be followed by this Court. 24 On the other hand, the Revenue has opposed the petitions and contended that :

They would continue to have effect for the past period, i.e., for assessment years upto 31st March 2021. If the notice for reopening of assessment was issued for any period prior to 1st April 2021, the provisions as they stood at the relevant time would apply. In such a case, there was no requirement of following the procedure laid down under Section 148A of the Act before issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act;

(b) present situation is unprecedented and has arisen on account of pandemic caused by COVID-19. Unprecedented situation Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 37/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc required extraordinary measures. The Relaxation Ordinance, 2020 and Relaxation Act 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 COVID-19. The CBDT, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred in sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 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, therefore, which come up for our consideration are :

Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 38/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc 26 A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Agarwal (Supra) has ruled in favour of the assessee and in paragraphs 64 to 73 held as under :

Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 41/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc 27 A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Mon Mohan Kohli (Supra), in paragraphs 42 to 48, while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee, observed as under :

45. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that as the Legislature has permitted re-assessment to be made in this manner only, it can be done in this manner, or not at all.

GOVERNMENT/EXECUTIVE TO EXTEND ONLY THE TIME LINES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE GOVERNMENT/EXECUTIVE CAN NEITHER MAKE OR CHANGE LAW OF THE LAND NOR CAN IT IMPEDE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LAW MADE BY THE PARLIAMENT.

46. Upon perusal of Section 3(1) of Relaxation Act, 2020, this Court is of the view that it extends only the time lines. Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020 stipulates that where, any time limit has been stipulated in a specified Act which falls between the period 20th day of March, 2020 and 31st day of December, 2020 for the completion or compliance of such action as issuance of any notice under the provisions of the specified Acts and where completion or compliance of such action has not been made within such time, then the time limit for completion or compliance of such action shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the specified Acts, stand extended. It is important to bear in mind that Section 3(1) of the Relaxation Act, 2020 does not empower the Central Government to postpone the applicability of any provision which has been enacted from a particular date. There is a difference between extension of time of an action which is getting time barred and applicability of a provision which has been enacted and notified by the Legislature. Relaxation Act, 2020 nowhere delegates power to the Central Government to postpone the date of applicability of a new law enacted by the Legislature. Relaxation Act, 2020 also does not put any embargo on the power of the Legislature to legislate.

47. Also, the impugned Explanations in the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 are beyond the power delegated to the Government, as the Relaxation Act does not give power to Government to extend the erstwhile Sections 147 to 151 beyond 31st March, 2021 and/or defer the operation of substituted provisions enacted by the Finance Act, 2021 . Accordingly, the provisions of Section 148A had to be complied with before issuing notices under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the submission of the respondents- Revenue based on the judgment passed by Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja Vs. UOI (supra) does not find favour with this Court. After all, it is settled law that Executive cannot make or change law of the land without specific Authority from Parliament to do so.

48. Consequently, the Relaxation Act, 2020 and Notifications issued thereunder can only change the time-lines applicable to the issuance of a Section 148 notice, but they cannot change the statutory provisions applicable thereto which are required to be strictly complied with. Further, just as the Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 43/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc Executive cannot legislate, it cannot impede the implementation of law made by the Legislature." 28 The Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja (Supra) in paragraphs 31 to 37, 39 and 40 has held as under :

\ A Constitution Bench in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar And Company And Ors. , (2018) 9 SCC 1, had reiterated these principles. It was a case where on a reference to the Larger Bench the Supreme Court was considering a question whether an ambiguity in a tax exemption provision or notification, the same must be interpreted so as to favour the assessee. Making a clear distinction between a charging provision of a taxing statute and exemption notification which waives a tax or a levy normally imposed, the Supreme Court observed as under :-

(ii) Being the central legislation of pan-India effect and operating in the field of taxation, the view of another High Court would have considerable persuasive value. In other words, the High Court would have due regard to the view already expressed by another High Court and to the possible extent prefer consistency of views across the country over discord. Unless the view expressed by another High Court is plainly unacceptable to the Court, the High Court would lean in favour of the well considered view already expressed by another Court.

(iii) The speech made the Finance Minister on the floor of the House explaining the budgetary provisions would provide a useful tool in interpreting the taxing provisions particularly in case (99 of 113) [CW-969/2022] the dispute about their interpretation arises. When the Finance Minister who has piloted the budget in her speech explains the provisions contained in the Finance Bill and elaborates on the mischief Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 45/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc which prevails and which is sought to be cured by substituting the existing statutory provisions, the explanation rendered by the Finance Minister has considerable importance in the context of correct interpretation of such provisions. In case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax , reported in (1975) 101 ITR 234 it was observed as under :-

In case of K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer , reported in (1981) 131 ITR 597 it was observed as under :-

(iv) It is well accepted that reopening a completed assessment causes great hardship to the assessee and also brings uncertainty. In a judgment in case of Gujarat Power Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 47/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in [2013] 350 ITR 266(Guj), a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court had observed as under :-

32. The fact that under the Finance Act, 2021 the provisions for reassessment were substituted is beyond doubt. The notes on clauses for making relevant amendments clearly at every stage provide that the Bill proposes to substitute the existing provisions. For example it is stated that clause 35 seeks to amend Section 147 of the Act relating to income escaping assessment. Likewise under clause 36 Section 148 is proposed to be substituted so as to provide that before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 and subject to the provisions of Section 148A the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice along with a copy of order passed under clause (d) of Section 148 . The Finance Act itself also refers to the substitution of Sections 147 , 148 and 149 etc. along side insertion of Section 148A which as noted was being introduced for the first time.

In the budged speech that the Finance Minister gave on the floor of the House it was explained that there was a proposal to reduce the time limit for reopening of the assessments. In the memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill, 2021, it was provided that the Bill proposes a completely new procedure for assessment of cases of reopening. It was pointed out that new Section 148A proposes issuance of notice and passing of the order by the Assessing Officer. It was further provided as under :-

33. In case of Government of India and Others Vs. Indian Tobacco Association , reported in (2005) 7 SCC 396, the Supreme Court considered the effect of substitution of a statutory provision by new one. It was observed as under :-

25. In Zile Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. wherein the effect of an amendment in the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 by Act No. 15 of 1994 whereby the word "after" was substituted by the word "upto" fell for consideration; wherein Lahoti, C.J. speaking for a three-

retrospective effect being declaratory in nature as thereby obvious absurdity occurring in the first amendment and bring the same in conformity with what the legislature really intended to provide was removed, stating: (SCC p. 12 paras 23-25) "23. The text of Section 2 of the Second Amendment Act provides for the word ""upto""

24. The substitution of one text for the other pre- existing text is one of the known and well-

recognised practices employed in legislative drafting. 'Substitution' has to be distinguished from 'supersession' or a mere repeal of an existing provision.

25. Substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its (104 of 113) [CW- 969/2022] replacement by the new provision (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation, ibid, p.565). If any authority is needed in support of the proposition, it is to be found in West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. v. State of U.P. , State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal , Koteswar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga and Co. and A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappa Chettiar v. S. Michael . In West U.P. Sugar Mills Association case a three- Judges Bench of this Court held that the State Government by substituting the new rule in place of the old one never intended to keep alive the old rule. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances centering around the issue the Court held that the substitution had the effect of just deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative. In Mangilal Pindwal case this Court upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute which had ceased to exist and held that the substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law during the period in which it was in force. In Koteswar case a three- Judge Bench of this Court emphasized the distinction between 'supersession' of a rule arid 'substitution' of a rule and held that the process of substitution consists of two steps : first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place."

34. In case of State of M.P. Vs. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd. and Others , reported in (2003) 7 SCC 389, the Supreme Court held as under :-

35. In case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mangilal Pindwal , reported in (1996) 5 SCC 60, it was observed that substitution of a provision results in repeal of the old provision and replacement by new provision. By repeal the provisions repealed ceased to exist with effect from the date of repeal but operation of the provision as it stood prior to repeal is not affected. It was held as under :-

referred in the abovementioned passages in Craies on Statute Law also indicate that the principle that on repeal a statute is obliterated is subject to the exception that it exists in respect of transactions past and closed. To the same effect is the Jaw laid down by this Court. [See : Qudrat Ullah v. Municipal Board . Bareilly, SCR at p. 539]

12. This means that as a result of repeal of a statute the statute as repealed ceases to exist with effect from the date of such repeal but the repeal does not affect the previous operation of the law which has been repealed during the period it was operative prior to the date of such repeal.........."

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 (107 of 113) [CW-969/2022] 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 (108 of 113) [CW-969/2022] 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 Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 53/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc 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 proviso to section 149(1) was wholly unnecessary. Looked from both angles, namely, no indication of surviving the past provisions after the substitution and in fact an active indication to the contrary, inescapable conclusion that we must arrive at is that for any action of issuance of notice under Section 148 after 01.04.2021 the newly introduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021 would apply. Mere extension of time limits for issuing notice under section 148 would not change this position that obtains in law. Under no circumstances the extended period available in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 which we may recall now stands at 10 years instead of 6 years previously available with the revenue, can be pressed in service for reopening assessments for the past period. This flows from the plain meaning of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 149 . In plain terms a notice which had become time barred prior to 01.04.2021 as per the then prevailing provisions, would not be revived by virtue of the application of Section 149(1)(b) effective from 01.04.2021. All the notices issued in the present cases are after 01.04.2021 and have been issued without following the procedure contained in Section 148A of the Act and are therefore invalid.

38. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

39. It is well settled that there is presumption of constitutionality of a statute (refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in case of The State of Jammu & Kashmir, Vs. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors. , reported in AIR 1974 SC 1). The said principle of presumption of constitutionality also applies to piece of delegated legislation. In case of St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional Director, National Council For Teachers Education and Another , reported in (2003) 3 SCC 321, it was observed that it is well settled in considering the vires of subordinate legislation one should start with the presumption that it is intra vires and if it is open to two constructions, one of which would make it valid and other invalid, the courts must adopt that construction which makes it valid. However it is equally well (110 of 113) [CW- 969/2022] settled that the subordinate legislation does not enjoy same level of immunity as the law framed by the Parliament or the State Legislature. The law framed by the Parliament or the State Legislature can be challenged only on the grounds of being beyond the legislative competence or being contrary to the fundamental rights or any other Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 54/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc constitutional provisions. Third ground of challenge which is now recognized in the judgment in case of Shayara Bano Vs Union of India reported in 2017 9 SCC 1 is of legislation being manifestly arbitrary. A subordinate legislation can be challenged on all these grounds as well as on the grounds that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made or that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or it is contrary to some of the statutes applicable on the subject matter. In case of J.K. Industries Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. , reported in (2007) 13 SCC 673, it was observed as under :-

40. With this background we may revert to the Relaxation Act, 2020 and the two notifications issued by the CBDT. We may recall, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020 while extending the time limits for taking action and making compliances in the specified Acts upto 31.12.2020 the power was given to the Central Government to extend the time further by issuing a notification. This was the only power vested in the Central Government. As a piece of delegated legislation the notifications issued in exercise of such powers, had to be Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 55/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc within the confines of such powers. In plain terms under sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020 the Government of India was authorized to extend the time limits by issuing notifications in this regard. Issuing any explanation touching the provisions of the Income Tax Act was not part of this delegation at all. The CBDT while issuing the notifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 when introduced an explanation which provided by way of clarification that for the purposes of issuance of notice under Section 148 as per the time limits specified in Section 149 or 151, the provisions as they stood as on 31.03.2021 before commencement of the Finance Act, 2021 shall apply, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as a subordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not have travelled beyond the powers vested in the Government of India by the parent Act. Even otherwise it is extremely doubtful whether the explanation in the guise of clarification can change the very basis of the statutory provisions. If the plain meaning of the statutory provision and its (112 of 113) [CW-969/2022] interpretation is clear, by adopting a position different in an explanation and describing it to be clarificatory, the subordinate legislature cannot be permitted to amend the provisions of the parent Act. Accordingly, these explanations are unconstitutional and declared as invalid.

29 At the outset, we had made it clear to Mr. Anil Singh, learned ASG that we were inclined to go along with the view expressed by the three Division Benches of Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court and Delhi High Court. During the hearing our attention was invited to the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Vellore Institute of Technology (Supra). We expressed that we were inclined to take a similar view as expressed by all the Division Benches and independently also we hold the same view. We also indicated to the learned ASG that we were unable to persuade ourselves to accept the analysis of the learned Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Palak Khatuja (Supra).

to argue apart from the submissions of Revenue already recorded in these judgments of the four Division Benches. Mr. Anil Singh, learned ASG answered in affirmative.

31 Before we proceed further in detail with the submissions of the learned ASG, Mr. Mistri and Mr. Pardiwalla, we would note the compact submissions made by Mr. Chatterji and Mr. Andhyarujina :

Mr. Chatterji submitted that no authority was vested in Government to issue the impugned notifications so as to disturb/intrude into the field occupied by the legislature.

(b) Mr. Andhyarujina kept his submissions brief as others were already covering everything and submitted that essential legislative functions and extension of limitation period cannot be delegated and if limitation period is altered by a subordinate authority, then the delegation is excessive and the doctrine of ultra vires can be invoked which envisages that

10. AIR 1988 SC 1050 Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 57/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc a subordinate authority can exercise only so much power as is conferred to it under the law. Mr. Andhyarujina also submitted that since the Finance Act, 2021 is the latter Act in the instant case, the general rule of law states that when there is a conflict between two statues, the one that is more recent prevails and in this case, since the Finance Act was more recent compared to the Relaxation Act, the provisions of Finance Act would prevail over the provisions made in the Relaxation Act. Therefore, as the relaxation and extension of the period of limitation in respect of issuing reopening notices can only be a function or a power conferred only to the legislation and not a subordinate authority, the two notifications extending the period of limitation are ultra vires and bad in law and vitiated in law since the authority to extend the period of limitation did not vest with the authority at all.

Both Mr. Chatterji and Mr. Andhyarujina supported the submissions of Mr. Mistri and Mr. Pardiwalla. 32 Now reverting to the submissions of learned ASG, during the course of hearing, learned ASG tendered a synopsis of submissions spread in 39 paragraphs. Learned ASG stated that paragraphs 1 to 15 contained additional arguments of respondents other than those urged before and negated by the various High Courts and paragraphs 16 to 39 deal with issues already considered and dealt with by various High Courts and he Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 58/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc reiterated and adopted the stand taken by the Revenue before those Courts.

Revenue's additional arguments, as set out in the synopsis, are as under :

44 As submitted by Mr. Mistri, with whom we agree, Chapter II of Relaxation Act provide for - "Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act"and Section 3 forms part of this Chapter. Further Chapter III provides for amendment to Income Tax Act, 1961 and various Sections of the Act have been amended in Chapter III. From this the following propositions Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 66/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc emerge :

45 As submitted by Mr. Pardiwalla there are other Sections in the Finance Act, 2021 which have amended other provisions of the Income Tax Act from dates other than 1st April, 2021. Like for example Section 12 of the Finance Act inserted a proviso in Section 43CA . Had the intention of the legislature, while amending Sections 147 to 153 , been to give it effect from 1stJuly, 2021, a similar savings clause could have been inserted, which has not been done. We agree with Mr. Pardiwalla because as per Section 1(2)(a) of the Finance Act, 2021, the amendments to Sections 147 to 153 of the Act shall come into force on 1st April, 2021. Similarly, the Memorandum Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 67/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2021 clarifies that these amendments will take effect from 1 st April, 2021. Section 12 of the Finance Act inserted a proviso in Section 43CA which inter alia provides that the words 'one hundred and ten percent' in the first proviso will be substituted by the words 'one hundred and twenty percent' if the transfer of residential units takes place during the period beginning from 12 th day of November, 2020 and ending on the 30th day of June, 2021. Therefore, had the intention of the legislature, while amending Sections 147 to 153 , was to give it effect from 1stJuly, 2021, a similar savings clause could have been inserted, which has not been done.

46 Mr. Pardiwalla submitted that only Section 4 of Relaxation Act which amended the Act and no such amendments to the substantive provisions of the Act were envisaged under Section 3 of Relaxation Act, which was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits under various enactments.

47 As noted earlier, it is Revenue's case that Section 3 of Relaxation Act enabled the Central Government to issue notifications which would permit the Assessing Officers to issue notices under Section 148 of the Act after 1st April, 2021 in terms of the erstwhile provisions of Sections 147 to section 151 , even though the said provisions were repealed with effect from 1st April, 2021 by the Finance Act, 2021 . It is, however, pertinent to note Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 68/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc that Section 3 of Relaxation Act falls in Chapter II of the said Act, which is titled 'Relaxation of Certain Provisions of Specified Act'. In contradistinction, Section 4 of Relaxation Act which does amend several provisions of the Act falls in Chapter III, which is titled ' Amendments to the Income Tax Act, 1961 '. It will be apposite to notice that the amendments provided for in Section 4 were made by the Legislature itself in terms of the said Section and no such power to amend the Act was delegated to the Central Government. Therefore, we would agree with Mr. Pardiwalla that it is only Section 4 of Relaxation Act which amended the Act and no such amendments to the substantive provisions of the Act were envisaged under Section 3 of Relaxation Act, which was only a relaxation provision dealing with time limits under various enactments.

48 Mr. Pardiwalla submitted that even assuming for a moment that the primary contention of petitioners that the Explanations in the notifications are invalid is not accepted, still the impugned notices will be bad in law as the Explanation only seeks to effectuate the provisions of the erstwhile Sections 148 , 149 and 151 of the Act. It does not cover the erstwhile Section 147 of the Act. As rightly submitted by Mr. Pardiwalla, the Assessing Officer could have assumed jurisdiction while issuing the impugned notices only after complying with the amended Section 147 . The same has not been done by the Assessing Officers as (a) his assumption of Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 69/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc jurisdiction is on the basis of his 'reason to believe' that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, a concept, which is no longer recognised in the amended Section 147 ; and (b) the amended Section 147 is in any event subject to Sections 148 to 153 , which would also include the procedure contained in Section 148A , which has not been followed. Therefore, the impugned notices do not even comply with the relevant statutory provisions, even if we do not find fault with the Explanations in the two notifications. Infact the Delhi High Court in paragraph 84 of Mon Mohan Kohli (Supra) has also considered and accepted this aspect of the matter. 49 Some more reasons why the reopening notices must go are :

Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 70/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc

(c) In any case, Relaxation Act is not applicable for Assessment Years 2015-2016 or any subsequent year and, hence, the question of applicability of the Notification Nos.20 and 38 of 2021 does not arise. The time limit to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Years 2015-2016 onwards was not expiring within the period for which Section 3(1) of Relaxation Act was applicable and, hence, Relaxation Act could never apply for these assessment years. As a consequence, there can be no question of extending the period of limitation for such assessment years.

50 To sum up, since we are in respectful agreement with the reasons recorded and views taken by the Allahabad High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court and Madras High Court, in the cases referred hereinabove, and for reasons noted above, all these writ petitions listed above are disposed by allowing the same. The explanations to the Notification No.20 of 2021 dated 31 st March 2021 and Notification No.38 of 2021 dated 27th April 2021 are declared ultra vires and are, therefore, bad in law and null and void.

51 All the impugned notices issued under Section 148 of the Act are quashed and set aside.

52 It will be open to the Assessing Officers concerned to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions Gauri Gaekwad ::: Uploaded on - 30/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 31/03/2022 05:31:34 ::: 71/71 1377.WP-1334-2021 AND ORS.doc of the Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 after strictly complying with the provisions of the Act.

53 All petitions disposed accordingly. No order as to costs.