Abhinav Jindal Huf v. Income Tax Officer Ward 54 (1) Delhi And Ors

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 11 September 2024 Judgment pronounced on: 20 September 2024 + W.P.(C) 2698/2022 ABHINAV JINDAL HUF .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kapil Goel & Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54 (1) DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar & Ms. Easha, Advs. + W.P.(C) 3151/2022 NANDITA SIKKA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kapil Goel & Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23 (3) DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Ms. Nivedita & Ms. Nancy Jain, Advs. + W.P.(C) 3344/2022 ATMA RAM SINGHANIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kapil Goel & Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advs. versus Signature Not Verified ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 22 (2) DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Ashvini Kumar & Mr. Rishabh Nangia, JSCs. + W.P.(C) 4676/2022 OMNIPRESENT CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani & Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 19-1 & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Ashvini Kumar & Mr. Rishabh Nangia, JSCs. + W.P.(C) 4725/2022 SABHARWAL APARTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani & Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 22-2, DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Ms. Nivedita & Ms. Nancy Jain, Advs. + W.P.(C) 6225/2022 PRASHANT SOFTWARES PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Ms. Anjali Jha Manish, Ms. Muskan Saxena & Mr. Ankur Singh, Advs. versus ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Ashvini Kumar & Mr. Rishabh Nangia, JSCs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA J U D G M E N T YASHWANT VARMA, J. 1.This batch of writ petitions assails the validity of the reassessment action initiated by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[1] and pertaining to Assessment Year[2] 2015-16. The solitary ground on which those reassessments were assailed before us was a violation of the provisions contained in Section 151 of the Act. 2.It is the case of the writ petitioners that the sanction for initiation of reassessment action rests on an approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax[3] as opposed to the Principal Chief Commissioner /Chief Commissioner/ Principal Commissioner/ Commissioner as mandated by Section 151(1) of the Act. It is contended that since all the impugned Section 148 notices have come to be issued after the expiry of a period of four years from the concerned 1 Act 2 AY 2 AY 3 JCIT Signature Not Verified AY, they were liable to be mandatorily approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner or the other authorities specified in sub-section (1) of Section 151. 2.It is the case of the writ petitioners that the sanction for initiation of reassessment action rests on an approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax[3] as opposed to the Principal Chief Commissioner /Chief Commissioner/ Principal Commissioner/ Commissioner as mandated by Section 151(1) of the Act. It is contended that since all the impugned Section 148 notices have come to be issued after the expiry of a period of four years from the concerned 1 Act 2 AY 2 AY 3 JCIT Signature Not Verified AY, they were liable to be mandatorily approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner or the other authorities specified in sub-section (1) of Section 151. 3.According to the writ petitioners, the impugned notices would not sustain even if they were tested on the basis of Section 151 as it came to exist on the statute book after Finance Act 2021. It becomes pertinent to note that after the passing of the Finance Act 2021, Sections 148 and 148A introduced the concept of “specified authority” as the designated officer which would be liable to accord sanction for reassessment and which expression was defined by Section 151. In terms of Section 151(i) after the passing of the Finance Act 2021, if the notices for reassessment were issued where “three years or less than three years” had elapsed from the end of the relevant AY, the action would have to be based on the approval of the Principal Commissioner/Principal Director/Commissioner/Director. In all other cases, and which would relate to those reassessments which were proposed to be commenced “if more than three years” had elapsed from the end of the concerned AY, the authorities empowered to accord approval were specified to be the Principal Chief Commissioner/ Principal Director General/ Chief Commissioner/ Director General. The petitioners would contend that viewed from any angle and irrespective of whether the unamended Section 151 or the provision as it came to form part of the statute post Finance Act 2021, the approval of reassessment by the JCIT would not sustain. 4.The petitioners would assert that the provision for sanction which stands engrafted in Section 151 assumes significance in light of the statute clearly stipulating that a reassessment action would not be Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 2698/2022 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 36 Digitally SignedBy:KAMLESH KUMARSigning Date:20.09.202418:12:06 commenced unless the authorities mentioned in that provision are satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148/148A. It is their case that in the absence of sanction being accorded by the competent authority, the entire action for reassessment is liable to be set at nought on this ground alone. 5.The respondents, on the other hand, bid us to uphold the initiation of action in light of the provisions contained in the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020[4] and which enabled them to initiate action for reassessment notwithstanding the time frames ordinarily applicable having expired. To recall, TOLA had come to be promulgated to overcome the insurmountable difficulties which beset the initiation of action and compliance with statutory timelines on account of the COVID-19 pandemic which had broken out in March 2020 and raged across the country. The provisions of TOLA thus provided an extended lifeline for the issuance of notices, the grant of sanction and other statutory compliances contemplated under the Act. It is thus submitted that since the impugned notices, by virtue of TOLA, came to be validly issued after the expiry of four years, the sanction was liable to be obtained in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 151 and consequently, the approval accorded by the JCIT would be compliant with the statutory scheme of that provision. 6.It is pertinent to note that Section 151, pre-Finance Act 2021, categorized the approval liable to be accorded based upon the period within which a reassessment action was proposed to be initiated when 4 TOLA Signature Not Verified 6.It is pertinent to note that Section 151, pre-Finance Act 2021, categorized the approval liable to be accorded based upon the period within which a reassessment action was proposed to be initiated when 4 TOLA Signature Not Verified computed from the end of the relevant AY. While sub-section (1) catered to situations where a notice for reassessment was sought to be issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant AY and thus required that action be preceded by approval being obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner and the other authorities specified therein, sub-section (2) constituted the residuary clause and pertained to cases falling within its ambit where approval was to be obtained from the JCIT. 7.Section 151 as it stood prior to and as it existed by virtue of the promulgation of Finance Act 2021 is extracted in a tabular form hereinbelow:- of such notice. (3) For the purposes of sub-section (1) and subsection (2), the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself. ] 8.Subsequently, by virtue of Finance Act 2023, the phrase “where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General” was deleted from Section 151 as it exists and a proviso had been inserted clarifying that the period of three years for the purpose of Section 151(i) would be computed in light of the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Provisos to Section 149(1) of the Act. Section 151 has been further reframed by virtue of Finance Act 2024 to define the „specified authority‟ for sanction for issuance of notice to be the Additional Commissioner/ Additional Director/ Joint Commissioner/ Joint Director. However, in the present batch of writ petitions, we are concerned with the provisions of Section 151 as it stood immediately before and after the promulgation of Finance Act 2021. 9.For the purposes of brevity, we deem it apposite to notice the following salient facts as they obtain in W.P.(C) 2698/2022. For AY 2015-16, the petitioner is stated to have furnished a Return of Income on 30 October 2015. The aforesaid Return is stated to have been duly acknowledged in terms contemplated under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, a notice under Section 148 dated 31 March 2021 is stated to Page 7 of 36 have been issued to the writ petitioner. The notice, it is pertinent to note, appears to have been digitally signed on 01 April 2021, and, as per the writ petitioner, served via email on 22 April 2021. Responding to the aforesaid Section 148 notice, a revised Return is stated to have been filed by the writ petitioner on 13 July 2021. 10.The petitioner is stated to have taken an objection asserting that the notice would be invalid being barred by limitation. In addition, the petitioner also appears to have objected to the Assessing Officer[5]havingfailed to follow the procedure as prescribed under Section 148A and which had come to be introduced in the Act by virtue of Finance Act 2021 with effect from 01 April 2021. The aforesaid objections came to be disposed of with the AO holding that the commencement of action under the statutory regime as it existed prior to 01 April 2021 was valid and would be in accordance with Central Board of Direct Taxes[6] Circular F. No. 225/40/2021/ITA-II dated 04 March 2021. 11.While the controversy with respect to the applicability of the changed regime of reassessment and which would govern all notices issued after 01 April 2021 is no longer res integra and stands conclusively settled by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal[7], the challenge in the present set of writ petitions stands confined to the aspect of sanction and approval as contemplated under Section 151 of the Act. We have, therefore, alluded to Ashish Agarwal only for the sake of completeness. 11.While the controversy with respect to the applicability of the changed regime of reassessment and which would govern all notices issued after 01 April 2021 is no longer res integra and stands conclusively settled by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal[7], the challenge in the present set of writ petitions stands confined to the aspect of sanction and approval as contemplated under Section 151 of the Act. We have, therefore, alluded to Ashish Agarwal only for the sake of completeness. 12.The respective sides also take contrary positions with respect to 5 AO 6 CBDT 7 (2023) 1 SCC 617 Signature Not Verified whether Section 151 in its unamended or its rescripted version would apply. While the writ petitioners assert that since the notice was digitally signed on and dispatched after 01 April 2021, it would be Section 151 as it stood after the said date which would govern, the respondents would contend that it would be the date appearing on the notice which would be determinative. 13.However, we note that it was Section 151(2), and as that provision existed prior to Finance Act 2021, which alone spoke of the JCIT as the authority competent to accord approval and that too in cases where the reassessment was being initiated within four years from the end of the relevant AY. After 01 April 2021, Section 151 post its amendment makes no reference to a JCIT, and both its clauses specify a particular set of authorities who are liable to examine the aspect of sanction dependent solely upon whether reassessment is proposed to be initiated within or up to three years and in the alternative scenario where it is initiated beyond that period. 14.As is manifest from a plain reading of the original notice under Section 148 in W.P.(C) 2698/2022, the same came to be issued with the approval of the JCIT Range-52, Delhi. Similar is the position that emerges from a perusal of the Section 148 notices which are impugned in the connected writ petitions with the solitary distinction being of the JCITs‟ being authorities conferred with jurisdiction over different ranges. 15.Leading arguments on behalf of the writ petitioners, Mr. Kapil Goel learned counsel submitted that the challenge as raised by the writ petitioners is liable to succeed bearing in mind the consistent position Signature Not Verified Page 9 of 36 with respect to Section 151 which has been taken by the Bombay, Madras and Orissa High Courts and all of which have taken the view that the provisions of TOLA cannot be construed as having amended the procedure for approval as contemplated under Section 151 of the Act. 16.Mr. Goel further submitted that this aspect had also fallen for consideration before our High Court in Twylight Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax[8] and where too this issue came to be answered in favour of the assessees as under:- “4.1. In defence of the writ petitions, the Revenue, inter alia, has relied upon the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (in short, “TOLA”) and paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2(ii) of Instruction No. 1 of 2022 dated May 11, 2022 ((2022) 444 ITR (St) 43) issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (in short, “CBDT”). xxxx xxxx xxxx 7. A careful perusal of the above extract would show that after the amendment, section 151 has been split and the part which enjoins that the approval of the specified authority is mandatory stands embedded in the first proviso to section 148. 7.1. The concerned specified authorities, depending on the applicable timeframe, are adverted to in section 151 of the Act. 8. The first proviso to section 148 and section 151, when read conjointly, demonstrate the untenability of the submission made on behalf of the Revenue. xxxx xxxx xxxx 7. A careful perusal of the above extract would show that after the amendment, section 151 has been split and the part which enjoins that the approval of the specified authority is mandatory stands embedded in the first proviso to section 148. 7.1. The concerned specified authorities, depending on the applicable timeframe, are adverted to in section 151 of the Act. 8. The first proviso to section 148 and section 151, when read conjointly, demonstrate the untenability of the submission made on behalf of the Revenue. xxxx xxxx xxxx12. Clearly, the Revenue advanced the argument of interlinkage between limitation and the ascertainment of the specified authority due to the plain language of the amended section 151 of the Act. Section 151, when read alongside the first proviso to section 148, brings the aspect of inextricable linkage to the fore. xxxx xxxx xxxx12.1. Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 151 of the amended Act (which has been extracted hereinabove) clearly specify the authority whose approval can trigger the reassessment proceedings. Thus, if three (3) years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority who would grant approval for initiation of reassessment proceedings will be the Principal Commissioner or 8 2024 SCC OnLine Del 330 Signature Not Verified Principal Director or Commissioner or Director. However, if more than three (3) years from the end of the relevant assessment year have elapsed, the specified authority for according approval for the reassessment shall be the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or, where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director ”General. 17.As was noticed in the introductory parts of this decision, the respondents had, contrary to the above, argued that once a notice for reassessment comes to be issued after the expiry of four years by virtue of the extended period of time made available by TOLA, all the impugned notices would fall within the ken of sub-section (2) of the pre-amendment Section 151 and consequently the sanction and approval accorded by the JCIT would be in accordance with law. 18.We find that a challenge on identical lines was addressed before the Bombay High Court in J M Financial and Investments Consultancy Services Private Limited vs. ACIT, Circle 3(2)(1) & Ors[9]. While dealing with these aspects the Bombay High Court had in J M Financial held as follows:- “5 Respondents have relied upon a letter dated 18th March 2021 issued by one Income Tax Officer, who has given an opinion to the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax that in view of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (Relaxation Act), limitation, inter alia, under provisions of Section 151(1) and Section 151(2), which were originally expiring on 31st March 2020 stand extended to 31st March 2021. According to the -Income Tax Officer, in view of the above, Assessment Year 20152016 which falls under the category within four years as on 31st March 2020, the statutory approval for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 may be given by the Range Head as per the said provisions. Mr. Sharma clarifies that the Income Tax Officer is only conveying the view of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax because this letter has been issued on the letterhead of Principal Commissioner of Income 9 Writ Petition No. 1050 of 2022 dated 04 April 2022 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 2698/2022 & Connected Matters Digitally SignedBy:KAMLESH KUMARSigning Date:20.09.202418:12:06 Tax. 9 Writ Petition No. 1050 of 2022 dated 04 April 2022 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 2698/2022 & Connected Matters Digitally SignedBy:KAMLESH KUMARSigning Date:20.09.202418:12:06 Tax. 6Even for a moment we agree with the view expressed by thePrincipal Commissioner of Income Tax, still it applies to only cases where the limitation was expiring on 31st March 2020. In the case at -hand, the assessment year is 20152016 and, therefore, the six years limitation will expire only on 31st March 2022. Certainly, therefore, the Relaxation Act provisions may not be applicable. In any event, the time to issue notice may have been extended but that would not amount to amending the provisions of Section 151 of the Act. 7In our view, since four years had expired from the end of therelevant assessment year, as provided under Section 151(1) of the Act, it is only the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner who could have accorded the approval and not the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax.On this ground alone, we will have to set aside the notice dated 31st March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act, which is impugned in this petition. In view thereof, the consequent orders and notices will also have to go.” 19.The decision in J M Financial came to be re-affirmed by that High Court in Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax & Ors.[10]. We deem it apposite to extract the following passages from that decision:- “24. As per section 151 of the Act, the "specified authority" who has to grant his sanction for the purposes of section 148 and section 148A is the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, the Chief Commissioner or Director General if more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. The present petition relates to the assessment year 2016-17, and as the impugned order and impugned notice are issued beyond the period of three years which elapsed on March 31, 2020 the approval as contemplated in section 151(ii) of the Act would have to be obtained which has not been done by the Assessing Officer. The impugned notice mentions that the prior approval has been taken of the "Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8" ("PCIT-8") which is bad in law as the approval should have been obtained in terms of section 151(ii) and not section 151(i) of the Act and the Principal Commissioner of Income- tax-8 cannot be the specified authority as per section 151 of the Act. Further, even in the affidavit-in-reply, the Department has accepted that the approval Signature Not Verified obtained is of the "Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-8" and, hence, such an approval would be bad in law. 25. The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, enacted on September 29, 2020 and came into force on March 31, 2020 ([2020] 428 ITR (St.) 29 ). It, inter alia, provided for a relaxation of certain provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Where any time limit for completion or compliance of an action such as completion of any proceedings or passing of any order or issuance of any notice fell between the period March 20, 2020 to December 31, 2020, the time limit for completion of such action stood extended to March 31, 2021. Thus, the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act only seeks to extend the period of limitation and does not affect the scope of section 151. 25. The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, enacted on September 29, 2020 and came into force on March 31, 2020 ([2020] 428 ITR (St.) 29 ). It, inter alia, provided for a relaxation of certain provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Where any time limit for completion or compliance of an action such as completion of any proceedings or passing of any order or issuance of any notice fell between the period March 20, 2020 to December 31, 2020, the time limit for completion of such action stood extended to March 31, 2021. Thus, the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act only seeks to extend the period of limitation and does not affect the scope of section 151. 26.The Assessing Officer cannot rely on the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act and the notifications issued thereunder as section 151 has been amended by the Finance Act, 2021 and the provisions of the amended section would have to be complied with by the Assessing Officer, with effect from April 1, 2021. Hence, the Assessing Officer cannot seek to take the shelter of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act as a subordinate legislation cannot override any statute enacted by Parliament. Further, the notification extending the dates from March 31, 2021 till June 30, 2021 cannot apply once the Finance Act, 2021 is in existence. The sanction of the specified authority has to be obtained in accordance with the law existing when the sanction is obtained and, therefore, the sanction is required to be obtained by applying the amended section 151(ii) of the Act and since the sanction has been obtained in terms of section 151(i) of the Act, the impugned order and impugned notice are bad in law and should be quashed and set aside.” 20.Dealing with an identical controversy the Madras High Court in Ramachandran Shivam vs. Income Tax Officer[11], explained the legal position in the following terms:- “13.The orders and notices are challenged herein not on the ground that the time limit under preamended section 149 does not apply, but on the ground that sanction was not granted by the specified authority. Therefore, it remains to be considered as to whether the application of the proviso to section 149 has the effect of incorporating by reference to preamended section 151. In order to 11 Citation Signature Not Verified substantiate the contention that preamended section 151 gets incorporated by reference, learned standing counsel relied on sub-section (2) to the preamended section 149. It should be noticed that the proviso to sub-section (1) of the amended section 149 does not even incorporate the whole of preamended section 149. It merely makes the time limit prescribed therein applicable to the issuance of notices for reassessment in respect of any assessment year beginning before April 1, 2021. A fortiori the proviso certainly does not incorporate preamended section 151 by reference and make it applicable. 14.The next question to be examined is the impact of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Undoubtedly, the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 extended the time limits under specified enactments, including the Income-tax Act. As per clause (a)(ii) of sub-section(1) of section 3 thereof, time limits for grant of sanction or approval were also extended. Since the petitioner does not challenge the sanction with respect to the time limit, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 is immaterial. Indeed, the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, which extends the time limits for completion of specified tasks up to March 31, 2021, itself becomes irrelevant because of the nature of the challenge in these writ petitions. 15.In Siemens Financial Services [Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bom); 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2822; (2023) 154 taxmann.com 159 (Bom).] , the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court concluded, in substantially similar facts and circumstances, that the amended section 151 and not the preamended section 151 would apply. For reasons set out above, I concur with the conclusion in Siemens Financial Services [Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT, (2023) 457 ITR 647 (Bom); 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2822; (2023) 154 taxmann.com 159 (Bom).] and Ganesh Das Khanna v. ITO [(2024) 460 ITR 546 (Delhi); (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 516; (2023) 156 taxmann.com 417 (Delhi).] as subsequently followed in Twylight Infrastructure [Twylight Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO, (2024) 463 ITR 702 (Delhi); 2024 SCC OnLine Del 330.] . Consequently, the validity of sanction for issuing the orders under section 148A(d) and the notices under section 148 should be tested with reference to amended section 151. If so tested, it is evident that sanction was not granted by an authority specified under clause (ii) of section 151. Hence, the orders under section 148A(d) and the notices under section 148 are quashed. As a corollary, the draft assessment orders under section 144B/144C cannot survive and are also quashed. 16. These writ petitions are allowed on the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.” 21.The Orissa High Court too in Ambika Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax[12]has taken an identical viewwhile holding in favour of the assessees as would be apparent from the following passages of that decision:- “2. In each of these cases, the challenges to a notice issued by the Income- tax Department (hereinafter "Department") under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (IT Act) as it stood prior to the amendment by the Finance Act of 2021 with effect from April 1, 2021. In other words, in each of these cases, the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act has been issued prior to April 1, 2021. In many of them, in fact, the date of the notice is March 31, 2021. 3. In each of these cases, the relevant assessment year (AY) in relation to which such notice has been issued is more than four years prior to the date of the reopening, i. e., it is beyond four years from the expiry of the assessment year in question and is clearly therefore, time barred in terms of the first proviso to section 147 of the Income-tax Act. 4. The stand of the Revenue that in view of the notifications issued by the Central Government in terms of the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, the said time limits stood extended is clearly untenable as those notifications were issued to deal with the situation arising from the amendment to the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act, 2021 with effect from April 1, 2021 whereas in these cases the notices were issued prior to April 1, 2021. 5. This court had an occasion in similar circumstances to quash an identical notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act by its order dated November 20, 2019 in Writ Petition (C) No. 7618 of 2009 and which order stood confirmed by this court by the dismissal of the Department's review petition, i. e., RVWPET No. 188 of 2020 by the order dated December 3, 2021 which reads as under : "1. Although the point made by the Revenue in this review petition is that this court in its order dated November 20, 2019 erred in drawing a distinction between an Additional Commissioner and Commissioner in terms of their authority, the point involved was that for the purpose of section 151(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 since the reopening of the assessment was beyond four years, it had to have the prior approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, and there was no such approval in the present case. "1. Although the point made by the Revenue in this review petition is that this court in its order dated November 20, 2019 erred in drawing a distinction between an Additional Commissioner and Commissioner in terms of their authority, the point involved was that for the purpose of section 151(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 since the reopening of the assessment was beyond four years, it had to have the prior approval of the Commissioner of Income-tax, and there was no such approval in the present case. 2. Consequently, no ground is made out for reviewing the order dated November 20, 2019 in Writ Petition (C) No. 7618 of 2009. 3. The review petition is dismissed." 6.Indeed in the notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act on March 31, 2021 which has been challenged in Writ Petition (C) No. 41826 of 2021 it has been stated that the notices had been issued after obtaining "necessary satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Range-I, Cuttack" whereas the Officer authorized to record the necessary satisfaction had to be the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax/Commissioner of Income-tax. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, in each of the above cases, the impugned notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act is hereby quashed. The writ petitions are allowed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.” 22.In Twylight Infrastructure, the Division Bench of our Court while dealing with a challenge to reassessment action and whether reassessment would sustain in case escaped income be less than INR 50 lakhs also had an occasion to deal with the aspect of specified authority under Section 151 of the Act. It ultimately answered the latter issue as under:- “10. As indicated above, the specified authority changes depending on the time limit prescribed in section 151 of the Act. It is on this account that there is a linkage between ruling rendered in Ganesh Dass Khanna [Ganesh Dass Khanna v. ITO, (2024) 460 ITR 546 (Delhi); 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7286; 2023 : DHC : 8187-DB.] and the instant matters. 11. It may also be noted that in Ganesh Dass Khanna [Ganesh Dass Khanna v. ITO, (2024) 460 ITR 546 (Delhi); 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7286; 2023 : DHC : 8187-DB.] , we had recorded the stand of the Revenue that the issue concerning limitation and the specified authority are “intertwined”. For convenience, the relevant part of the judgment is extracted hereafter (page 567 of 460 ITR): “24. On behalf of the Revenue, the following broad submissions were made:… (viii) Both under the unamended 1961 Act and amended 1961 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Act, the issue concerning limitation is inextricably intertwined with two aspects: (a) First, the rank of the authority granting approval/sanction for triggering reassessment proceedings. (b) Second, the quantum of income which has escaped assessment.” (Emphasis is ours) 12. Clearly, the Revenue advanced the argument of interlinkage between limitation and the ascertainment of the specified authority due to the plain language of the amended section 151 of the Act. Section 151, when read alongside the first proviso to section 148, brings the aspect of inextricable linkage to the fore. 12.1. Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 151 of the amended Act (which has been extracted hereinabove) clearly specify the authority whose approval can trigger the reassessment proceedings. Thus, if three (3) years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority who would grant approval for initiation of reassessment proceedings will be the Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director. However, if more than three (3) years from the end of the relevant assessment year have elapsed, the specified authority for according approval for the reassessment shall be the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or, where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General. 12.1. Clauses (i) and (ii) of section 151 of the amended Act (which has been extracted hereinabove) clearly specify the authority whose approval can trigger the reassessment proceedings. Thus, if three (3) years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the specified authority who would grant approval for initiation of reassessment proceedings will be the Principal Commissioner or Principal Director or Commissioner or Director. However, if more than three (3) years from the end of the relevant assessment year have elapsed, the specified authority for according approval for the reassessment shall be the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or, where there is no Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General, Chief Commissioner or Director General. 12.2. That the approval is mandatory is plainly evident on perusal of the first proviso appended to section 148 of the Act. The said proviso, at the risk of repetition, reads as follows: “Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year and the Assessing Officer has obtained prior approval of the specified authority to issue such notice.” 12.3.In these cases, there is no dispute that although three (3) years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval was sought from the authorities specified in clause (i), as against clause (ii) of section 151. 12.4. Before us, the counsel for the Revenue continue to hold this position. The only liberty that they seek is that if, based on the judgment in Ganesh Dass Khanna [Ganesh Dass Khanna v. ITO, (2024) 460 ITR 546 (Delhi); 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7286; 2023 : DHC : 8187-DB.] , the impugned orders and notices are set aside, liberty be given to the Revenue to commence the reassessment proceedings afresh. 13. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid, the impugned notices and orders in each of the above-captioned writ petitions are quashed on the ground that there is no approval of the specified authority, as indicated in section 151(ii) of the Act. The direction is issued with the caveat that the Revenue will have liberty to take steps, if deemed necessary, albeit as per law.” 23.As is manifest from the aforesaid discussion, High Courts appear to have consistently taken the position that TOLA does not impact the working of Section 151 and that the operation of the latter would not stand amended by TOLA which merely enabled the specified authority to issue notices or accord sanction within the extended time frame created by that legislation. However, and before we proceed to enunciate our position in respect of the principal issue which was addressed, it would be appropriate to dispose of an ancillary issue which arose from the rival submissions that were addressed. 24.As was noticed hereinabove, learned counsels for respective sides had taken a divergent view with respect to the date when the impugned notices could be said to have been “issued” and consequently the version of Section 151 which would be applicable. Although all the notices bore a date of 31 March 2021, in all the cases before us they came to be served upon the assessees‟ thereafter. It is also asserted by the writ petitioners that the notices were digitally signed on or after 01 April 2021 and dispatched thereafter. They would thus contend that it was the amended regime of reassessment that would be applicable. Signature Not Verified 25.In the counter affidavit which has been filed in the lead writ petition, we find that the respondents have in paragraphs 6 to 9 taken the following stand:- “6. It is respectfully submitted that the technical team of ITBA portalwere asked certain queries to clarify the issues regarding issuance of impugned notice dated 31.03.2021. The technical team of ITBA clarified the followings- Signature Not Verified 25.In the counter affidavit which has been filed in the lead writ petition, we find that the respondents have in paragraphs 6 to 9 taken the following stand:- “6. It is respectfully submitted that the technical team of ITBA portalwere asked certain queries to clarify the issues regarding issuance of impugned notice dated 31.03.2021. The technical team of ITBA clarified the followings- i. The document with DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148/2020- 21/1032104440(1) was generated at 7:41 pm on 31.03.2021. ii. The last transaction time of AO Ward 54(1) on 31.03.2021 was 08:56 pm. iii. Document with DIN No. ITBA/AST/S/148/2020- 21/1032104440(1) was signed by user on 01.04.2021 at 01:12:18 pm, mail was bounced but document read by e-filing on 02.04.2021 at 10:02 pm. Copy of notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 alongwith the email containing reply from ITBA technical team is annexed herewith as Annexure-R1 (Colly.). 7. There is no dispute that the DIN of the impugned notice was generated at 07:41 pm on 31.03.2021. 8. Also, it is evident that DSC was executed for signing the notice on 31.03.2021. However, the same was not getting processed because of system delay. The logout time of the AO confirmed by ITBA technical team is 08:56 pm on 31.03.2021, yet the impugned notice records time of digital signature as 12:42 am. This goes to establish that the digital signature was put on the notice on the portal by the AO on or before 08:56 pm on.31.03.2021 which on account of system delay was recorded as 12:42 am (about after 4 hours) on the portal. It is pertinent to mention here that the notice was uploaded and signed by the AO on the system on or before 08:56 pm and thus the notice was out for dispatch on the system beyond the control of the AO on or before 08:56 pm on 31.03.2021. Therefore, the impugned notice was issued on 31.03.2021 itself and not on or after 01.04.2021 as claimed by the Petitioner. Signature Not Verified 9. Besides, as the impugned notice was not getting processed on the portal, the AO therefore signed the impugned 148 notice manually on 31.03.2021 which was sent to the assessee through speed post on 07.04.2021. Copy of manually singed impugned notice under Section 148 dated 31.03.2021 along with speed post booking receipt dated 07.04.2021 is annexed herewith as Annexure-R2 (Colly).” 26.As is apparent from the above, while a document with a DIN number appears to have been drawn up on 31 March 2021, as per the respondents themselves, the document was digitally signed on 01 April 2021. They further concede to the fact that although the DSC was “executed for signing” on 31 March 2021, due to system delay the digital signature bears the time stamp of 12:42 AM. The respondents further proceed to significantly aver that since the impugned notice was not being processed on the portal, it was manually dispatched vide Speed Post on 07 April 2021. 27.The question of when a reassessment notice could be said to have been issued is no longer res integra and stands conclusively answered by the Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors.[13] The Court firstly categorised the various writ petitions under the following broad heads:- “Categories identified 1.13. The impugned notices as categorized by the counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Kavita Jha and recorded by this court vide its order dated March 24, 2022, are reproduced hereinunder : ".. . 1. Category A : is in respect of writ petitions where notice is dated March 31, 2021 or before but digitally signed on or after April 1, 2021, however sent and received on or after April 1, 2021. 2. Category B : is in respect of writ petitions where notice is dated March 31, 2021 or before, digitally not signed, however sent and received on or after April 1, 2021. 3. Category C : is in respect of writ petitions where notice is dated March 31, 2021 or before, digitally signed on or before March 31, 2021, however sent and received on or after April 1, 2021. “Categories identified 1.13. The impugned notices as categorized by the counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Kavita Jha and recorded by this court vide its order dated March 24, 2022, are reproduced hereinunder : ".. . 1. Category A : is in respect of writ petitions where notice is dated March 31, 2021 or before but digitally signed on or after April 1, 2021, however sent and received on or after April 1, 2021. 2. Category B : is in respect of writ petitions where notice is dated March 31, 2021 or before, digitally not signed, however sent and received on or after April 1, 2021. 3. Category C : is in respect of writ petitions where notice is dated March 31, 2021 or before, digitally signed on or before March 31, 2021, however sent and received on or after April 1, 2021. 4. Category D : is in respect of writ petitions where notice is dated March 31, 2021 or before, digitally signed on or before March 31, 2021, no service either by e-mail or by post or any other mode and assessee came to know later on through Portal or receipt of subsequent notice under section 142(1). 5. Category E : is in respect of writ petitions where notice is dated March 31, 2021 or before, manually signed, no service by e-mail but despatched through speed post on or after April 1, 2021. . ." 28.The Court then proceeded to explain the legal principles which would govern as under:- “25.10. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Daujee Abhusan Bhandar (supra), was the earliest to hold that drawing up a notice on March 31, 2021, and digitally signing the same, in the absence of despatch, does not amount to issuance of notice within the meaning of section 149 of the Act of 1961. The High Court after elaborately discussing the provisions of sections 282 and 282A of the Act of 1961, and the provisions of section 13 of the Act of 2000, held that, since the impugned notice therein though dated March 31, 2021, was issued through e-mail on April 6, 2021, the same was time barred and therefore liable to be quashed. The court at paragraphs 29 and 30 held as under (page 54 of 444 ITR) : "Thus, considering the provisions of sections 282 and 282A of the Act, 1961 and the provisions of section 13 of the Act, 2000 and meaning of the word 'issue" we find that firstly notice shall be signed by the assessing authority and then it has to be issued either in paper form or be communicated in electronic form by delivering or transmitting the copy thereof to the person therein named by modes provided in section 282 which includes transmitting in the form of electronic record. Section 13(1) of the Act, 2000 provides that unless otherwise agreed, the despatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters into computer resources outside the control of the originator. Thus, the point of time when a digitally signed notice in the form of electronic record is entered in computer resources outside the control of the originator, i. e., the assessing authority that shall be the date and time of issuance of notice under section 148 read with section 149 of the Act, 1961. In view of the discussion made above, we hold that mere digitally signing the notice is not the issuance of notice. Since the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 was issued to the petitioner on April 6, 2021 through e-mail, therefore, we hold that the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 is time barred. Consequent