D.b. Special Appeal Writ v. Connected With

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 156/2022 Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ito, Wd 1(3), Income TaxDepartment, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan DasRoad, Jaipur (Raj.)-302005. ----Appellant Versus Day Night Trading Private Limited, 30, Kishan Nagar,Janpath, Shyam Nagar Ext., Jaipur-302019, RajasthanThrough Its Director Nawdip Khemka, S/o Late Gulab ChandKhemka, Aged About 55 Years, R/o-30, Janpath, KishanNagar, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur-302019, Rajasthan. ----Respondent connected with D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 157/2022 Office Of The Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Gyandeep Khemka Huf ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 158/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Gokul Das Maheshwari Son Of Late Shri Roop ChandMaheshwari ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 159/2022 Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3) ----Appellant Versus Ashish Agarwal S/o Shri Chiranjeev Lal Agarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 160/2022 Office Of The Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Motisons Jewellers Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 161/2022 Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Girdhar Jewellers Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 163/2022 Office Of The Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Suman Khemka W/o Gyandeep Khemka ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 164/2022 Office Of The Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Nawdeep Kumar Khemka Huf ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 165/2022 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Nav Ratan Agrawal S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Agrawal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 168/2022 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4) ----Appellant Versus Reena Goyal D/o Ram Ratan Goyal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 169/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Lawat Jewellers Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 170/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Rambhajos ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 171/2022Office Of The Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Swati Khemka W/o Nawdip Khemka ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 172/2022 Office Of The Income Tax Officer----AppellantVersus Nischal Sidana Huf ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 173/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Akhil Maheshwari S/o Shri Ballabh Das Maheshwari ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 174/2022 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur Versus Kiran Infra Engineers Limited ----Appellant ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 175/2022 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Hema Agarwal D/o Sh. Bal Kishan Agarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 176/2022 Office Of The Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Smriti Khemka, D/o Nawdip Khemka ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 177/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----AppellantVersus Deepika Naredi Daughter Of Shri Radhey Shyam Mitta----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 178/2022 Office Of The Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Dhandia Exports ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 179/2022Office Of The Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Dhandia Gems Corporation ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 180/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Nehal Jain D/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 181/2022Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Priyanka Agarwal D/o Shri Om Prakash Kedia ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 182/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant VersusRavindra Agarwal Son Of Sobhag Mal Agarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 183/2022Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2) ----AppellantVersusRavi Agarwal S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Agarwal----Respondent Office Of The Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Dhandia Exports ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 179/2022Office Of The Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Dhandia Gems Corporation ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 180/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Nehal Jain D/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 181/2022Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Priyanka Agarwal D/o Shri Om Prakash Kedia ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 182/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant VersusRavindra Agarwal Son Of Sobhag Mal Agarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 183/2022Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2) ----AppellantVersusRavi Agarwal S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Agarwal----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 184/2022Income Tax Officer ----Appellant VersusVijay Kumar Goyal S/o Shri Gauri Shankar Agarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 185/2022Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Kaushalya Sharma Wife Of Shri Roshan Lal Sharma----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 186/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Manoj Kumar Agarwal Son Of Sobhag Mal Agarwal----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 187/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant VersusLalit Kumar Naredi Son Of Late Shri Durga PrasadNaredi ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 188/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant VersusDeepika Naredi Daughter Of Shri Radhey Shyam Mitta----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 189/2022Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Hajari Lal Sharma Huf ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 190/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Rambhajos ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 191/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Chetan Agrawal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 192/2022 Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Suresh Kumar Kedia S/o Prahlad Rai Kedia ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 193/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Alok Kumar Jain S/o Shri S.n. Jain ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 194/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Deep Shikha Developers Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 195/2022Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Vijay Kumar Goyal S/o Shri Gauri Shankar Agarwal----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 196/2022Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Vikram Agarwal S/o Shri Sitaram Agarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 197/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Mahesh Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Vaidh G.n. Sharma ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 198/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Nisha Agarwal D/o Shri Rajendra Agarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 199/2022 Assistnat Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Lawat Jewellers Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 200/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----AppellantVersus Lawat Jewellers Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 204/2022Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Mohammad Sadik S/o Sh. Mohammed Siddik ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 205/2022Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Praveen Kumar Bansal C/o Dinesh Bansal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 206/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Murari Lal Singhal S/o Sh. Dwarka Prasad Singhal----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 207/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1 Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Meghraj Singh Shekhawat S/o Late Sh. Kalyan Singh----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 208/2022Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Sunil Sankhla, S/o Sh. Shrawan Sankhla ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 209/2022 ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 204/2022Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Mohammad Sadik S/o Sh. Mohammed Siddik ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 205/2022Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Praveen Kumar Bansal C/o Dinesh Bansal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 206/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Murari Lal Singhal S/o Sh. Dwarka Prasad Singhal----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 207/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1 Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Meghraj Singh Shekhawat S/o Late Sh. Kalyan Singh----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 208/2022Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Sunil Sankhla, S/o Sh. Shrawan Sankhla ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 209/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----AppellantVersus----Respondent Hem Chand Jain, S/o Sh. Inder Chand Jain D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 210/2022Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Om Prakash Saini S/o Shri Puran Chand Chandel ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 211/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Mukut Behari Agarwal S/o Hanuman Das Agarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 212/2022 Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1) ----AppellantVersus Mukesh Misra , S/o Shri Bhagwan Misra ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 213/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 ----Appellant Versus Amrit Lal Maheshwari S/o Late Shri Radha KrishanMaheshwari ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 214/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----AppellantVersus----Respondent M/s Vedansh Creation D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 215/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Alliance Land Developers Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 216/2022Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Kiran Infra Ispat Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 217/2022Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Mustafa S/o Sh. Mohammad Miya ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 218/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Hem Chand Jain, S/o Sh. Inder Chand Jain ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 219/2022 Office Of Tghe Income Tax Officer Ito ----Appellant Versus Shri Ganesham Build Developers Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 220/2022Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Saroj Devi Nayak ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 221/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Okay Plus International Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 222/2022Income Tax Officer Versus Vijendra Singh S/o Sh. Mohan Lala ----Appellant ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 225/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Shree Fats And Proteins Pvt. Ltd. ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 226/2022Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Prem Devi Rao D/o Shri Bhairon Singh ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 227/2022Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Farasat Kamal Son Of Shri Kaiser Kamal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 228/2022 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax----AppellantVersusKapil Goyal S/o Sh. Daya Krishna Goyal----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 229/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Bairathi Shoe Company Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 230/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Anil Sankhla, S/o Sh. Sharwan Sankhla ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 231/2022 Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk ----AppellantVersus----Respondent Kamla Soni W/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Soni D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 232/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Mukut Behari Agarwal S/o Sh. Hanuman Das Agarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 233/2022Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 228/2022 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax----AppellantVersusKapil Goyal S/o Sh. Daya Krishna Goyal----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 229/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Bairathi Shoe Company Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 230/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Anil Sankhla, S/o Sh. Sharwan Sankhla ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 231/2022 Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk ----AppellantVersus----Respondent Kamla Soni W/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Soni D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 232/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Mukut Behari Agarwal S/o Sh. Hanuman Das Agarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 233/2022Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus----Respondent Satish Chand Agarwal S/o Sh. Jagdish Narayan D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 234/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant VersusRajendra Kumar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Ghisa LalAgarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 235/2022Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk ----Appellant Rajeev Bansal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 236/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Murari Lal Singhal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 237/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Rajeev Bansal S/o Madan Lal Bansal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 238/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Vijay Kumar Jain ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 240/2022Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur Range-2----Appellant Versus Manoj Agarwal S/o Shri Nav Ratan Agarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 241/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Shoukat Kamal Wife Of Shri Kaiser Kamal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 242/2022Income Tax Officer Versus N.k. Agarwal And Sons (Huf) ----Appellant ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 244/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Vinod Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Kailash Chand Agarwal----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 246/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus M/s Mangala Product Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 247/2022 Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Bal Kishan Bansal S/o Sh. Prabhu Lal Bansal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 248/2022 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax ----AppellantVersus Nitu Agarwal W/o Shri Manoj Agarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 249/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Shree Mangal Sodium India Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 250/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Dinesh Bajranglal Somani Alias Dinesh Kumar SomaniSon Of Shri Bajrang Lal Somani ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 251/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6 ----AppellantVersus Alok Kumar Jain S/o Shri S.n. Jain ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 252/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----AppellantVersusKandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Company PrivateLimited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 254/2022 Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Rajeev Bansal S/o Sh. Madan Lal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 255/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Rajeev Bansal S/o Madan Lal Bansal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 256/2022 Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Smt. Manju Kaushik W/o. Dr. V.k. Kaushik ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 257/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Manisha Bhandari W/o Shri Surendra Kumar Bhandari----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 258/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus ----AppellantVersusKandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Company PrivateLimited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 254/2022 Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Rajeev Bansal S/o Sh. Madan Lal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 255/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Rajeev Bansal S/o Madan Lal Bansal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 256/2022 Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2) Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Smt. Manju Kaushik W/o. Dr. V.k. Kaushik ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 257/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Manisha Bhandari W/o Shri Surendra Kumar Bhandari----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 258/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Manisha Bhandari W/o Shri Surendra Kumar Bhandari----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 259/2022Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Mohammed Shakil S/o Mohammed Hanif ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 260/2022Union Of India ----AppellantVersus Sultana Begum W/o Late Shri Sheikh Abdul Rasheed----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 261/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Vijay Kumar Jain ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 262/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Vijay Kumar Jain ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 263/2022 Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus----Respondent Phi Equity Trade D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 264/2022 Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Phi Equity Trade ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 265/2022Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----AppellantVersusRakesh Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Vijay Kumar Jain----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 267/2022 Income Tax Offcier ----Appellant Versus Padmasana Kothari D/o Sh. Milap Kothari ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 268/2022Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Kaushalya Devi W/o Late Prabhu Lal Bansal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 269/2022 Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus B Ralhan Stock Brokers Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 270/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Mahendra Agarwal Huf ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 271/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Smt. Poonam Kanwar W/o Shri Daulat Singh ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 272/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Nawal Kishore Khandelia And Sons Huf ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 273/2022 Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax----Appellant Versus B Ralhan Stock Brokers Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 274/2022 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Manoj Agarwal S/o Shri Nav Ratan Agarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 275/2022 Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus B Ralhan Stock Brokers Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 276/2022Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax----AppellantVersus Girnar Software Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 277/2022Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Jpj Financial Services ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 279/2022 Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersusGhan Shyam Dass Gidwani S/o Mahadev Das Gidwani----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 280/2022 Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant VersusGirnar Software Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 281/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Sushil Gupta S/o Shri Mata Deen Gupta ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 282/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Sunil Kumar Murlidhar Huf ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 283/2022 Girnar Software Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 277/2022Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Jpj Financial Services ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 279/2022 Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersusGhan Shyam Dass Gidwani S/o Mahadev Das Gidwani----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 280/2022 Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant VersusGirnar Software Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 281/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Sushil Gupta S/o Shri Mata Deen Gupta ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 282/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Sunil Kumar Murlidhar Huf ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 283/2022 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Appellant Versus Rajesh Motors Rajasthan Private Limited ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 284/2022Income Tax Officer ----AppellantVersus Kaushalya Devi W/o Late Prabhu Lal Bansal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 285/2022Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Rishab Jain Son Of Shri Suresh Agarwal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 286/2022Income Tax Officer Versus Azaz Kureshi S/o Sh. Gafoor Qureshi ----Appellant ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 287/2022 Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Bal Kishan Bansal S/o Sh. Prabhu Lal Bansal ----Respondent D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 289/2022Income Tax Officer ----Appellant Versus Fatima Kamal Islam Rubabul Islam Daughter Of ShriRubabul Islam Kaiser Kamal ----Respondent (Writ Petitions) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 713/2022 Goyal Salt Private Limited ----PetitionerVersus Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 747/2022 Late Shri Naresh Kumar Choudhary S/o Sh. MadanSingh Choudhary ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1052/2022Jitendra Kumar Singhi S/o Sh. Pukhraj Singhi ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1059/2022 Jitendra Kumar Singhi S/o Sh. Pukhraj Singhi ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1061/2022M/s Ambar Nagar Aavasiya Yojna ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1062/2022 Jitendra Kumar Singhi S/o Sh. Pukhraj Singhi ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1064/2022 Jitendra Kumar Singhi S/o Sh. Pukhraj Singhi ----PetitionerVersus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1065/2022M/s Ambar Nagar Aavasiya Yojna ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1066/2022 M/s Ambar Nagar Aavasiya Yojna Versus Income Tax Officer ----Petitioner ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1070/2022 Dimple Jain W/o Sh. Jitendra Kumar Singhi ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1072/2022M/s Ambar Nagar Aavasiya Yojna (Aop) ----PetitionerVersus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1268/2022Khalsa Real Estates ----PetitionerVersus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1672/2022 Bugali Devi W/o Sh. Sita Ram Balai ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1673/2022 Mahalaxmi Brokerage India Private Limited ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1257/2022 Harphul Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Saval Ram ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1265/2022 Pooran Chand Yadav S/o Sh. Matadin ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1267/2022Bhoop Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Jhabar Singh ----PetitionerVersus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent ----PetitionerVersus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1672/2022 Bugali Devi W/o Sh. Sita Ram Balai ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1673/2022 Mahalaxmi Brokerage India Private Limited ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1257/2022 Harphul Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Saval Ram ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1265/2022 Pooran Chand Yadav S/o Sh. Matadin ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1267/2022Bhoop Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Jhabar Singh ----PetitionerVersus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1262/2022Dharmender Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir Singh ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Offcer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1266/2022Nityannad Yadav S/o Sh. Raja Ram ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1039/2022Cold Steel Corporation Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income ----Petitioner ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1045/2022 Cold Steel Corporation ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1046/2022 Cold Steel Corporation ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1047/2022 Cold Steel Corporation ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1261/2022 Firoj Son Of Mohammed Amin ----PetitionerVersus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1525/2022 Tarun Jajoo S/o Mahesh Kumar Jajoo ----Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1532/2022 Rajmala Finlease (P) Ltd. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Nikhil Simlote & Mr. Anuroop Singhi, through VC (for assisted by Mr. Nikhil Simlote & Mr. Anuroop Singhi, through VC (for appellants in Special Appeals and for the respondents in the writ petitons)for the respondents in the writ petitons) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan, Mr. Jaideep MalikMr. Vedant Agarwal, Mr. Prateek Kedawat, Mr. Deepak Pareek and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, through VC (in writ petitions)Mr. Vedant Agarwal, Mr. Prateek Kedawat, Mr. Deepak Pareek and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, through VC (in writ petitions) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND 01/02/2022 Order Defects as pointed out by the Registry stand waived. With the consent of the parties, all these matters areheard and decided together by a common order. This bunch of writ petitions as well as D.B. SpecialAppeals (Writs) arising out of the judgment passed by thelearned Single Judge involves the same issue. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged therespective notices issued by the Assessing Officers underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening theassessment for various assessment years. All these notices were issued after 01.04.2021 andpertain to the relevant period which is prior to the said date. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitionsfiled by the writ petitioners and some of the writ petitons weresubmitted before the Division Bench in pursuance of thenotification issued by this Court. The issue involved in thesespecial appeals as well as the writ petitions is no more resintegra as the same has been decided by the Co-ordinateBench of this Court while deciding a batch of petitions with thelead case of "Sudesh Tanesh Vs. Income Tax Officer in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.969/2022". At the time of hearing of theidentical petitions, this Court forumulated the following twoquestions of law for consideration as under: All these notices were issued after 01.04.2021 andpertain to the relevant period which is prior to the said date. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitionsfiled by the writ petitioners and some of the writ petitons weresubmitted before the Division Bench in pursuance of thenotification issued by this Court. The issue involved in thesespecial appeals as well as the writ petitions is no more resintegra as the same has been decided by the Co-ordinateBench of this Court while deciding a batch of petitions with thelead case of "Sudesh Tanesh Vs. Income Tax Officer in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.969/2022". At the time of hearing of theidentical petitions, this Court forumulated the following twoquestions of law for consideration as under: 1. Whether after introduction of new provisions forreassessment of income by virtue of the Finance Act, 2021with effect from 01.04.2021, substituting the then existingprovisons, would the substituted provisions survive and couldbe used for issuing notices for reassessment for the pastyears? 2. Whether the explanations contained in the CentralBoard of Direct Taxes (for short 'the CBDT') circular dated31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 are legal and valid? After hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the Department of Income Tax as well as the counselappearing for the asseessee, the Co-ordinate Bench disposedof the identical D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.969/2022 titled as"Sudesh Tanesh Vs. Income Tax Officer" along-with theconnected matters vide judgment dated 27.01.2022 byobserving that:- "36. It can thus be seen that original provisionsupon their substitution stood repealed for all purposes and had no existence afterintroduction of the substituting provisions. Wemay refer to Section 6 of the General ClausesAct, 1897 which provides inter-alia that wherethe State Act or Central Act or regulationrepeals any enactment then unless a differentintention appears repeal shall not reviveanything not in force or existing at the time atwhich the repeal takes effect or affect theprevious operation of any enactment sorepealed or anything duly done or sufferedthereunder. Under the circumstances aftersubstitution unless there is any intentiondiscernible in the scheme of statute either pre-existing or newly introduced, the substitutedprovisions would not survive. purposes and had no existence afterintroduction of the substituting provisions. Wemay refer to Section 6 of the General ClausesAct, 1897 which provides inter-alia that wherethe State Act or Central Act or regulationrepeals any enactment then unless a differentintention appears repeal shall not reviveanything not in force or existing at the time atwhich the repeal takes effect or affect theprevious operation of any enactment sorepealed or anything duly done or sufferedthereunder. Under the circumstances aftersubstitution unless there is any intentiondiscernible in the scheme of statute either pre-existing or newly introduced, the substitutedprovisions would not survive. 37.In this context we have perused theprovisions of reassessment contained in theFinance Act, 2021. We have noticed earlier themajor departure that the new scheme ofreassessment has made under these provisions.The time limits for issuing notice forreassessment have been changed. The conceptof income chargeable to tax escapingassessment on account of failure on the part ofthe assessee to disclose truly or fully allmaterial facts is no longer relevant. Elaborateprovisions are made under Section 148A of theAct enabling the Assessing Officer to makeenquiry with respect to material suggesting thatincome has escaped assessment, issuance ofnotice to the assessee calling upon why noticeunder Section 148 should not be issued andpassing an order considering the materialavailable on record including response of theassessee if made while deciding whether thecase is fit for issuing notice under Section 148.There is absolutely no indication in all theseprovisions which would suggest that thelegislature intended that the new scheme ofreopening of assessments would be applicableonly to the period post 01.04.2021. In absenceof any such indication all notices which wereissued after 01.04.2021 had to be inaccordance with such provisions. To reiterate,we find no indication whatsoever in the schemeof statutory provisions suggesting that the pastprovisions would continue to apply even afterthe substitution for the assessment periodsprior to substitution. In fact there are strongindications to the contrary. We may recall, thattime limits for issuing notice under Section 148of the Act have been modified under substitutedSection 149. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 149 reduces such period to three yearsinstead of originally prevailing four years undernormal circumstances. Clause (b) extends theupper limit of six years previously prevailing toten years in cases where income chargeable totax which has escaped assessment amounts toor is likely to amount to 50 lacs or more. Sub-section (1) of Section 149 thus contracts as wellas expands the time limit for issuing noticeunder Section 148 depending on the questionwhether the case falls under clause (a) orclause (b). In this context the first proviso toSection 149(1) provides that no notice underSection 148 shall be issued at any time in acase for the relevant assessment yearbeginning on or before 01.04.2021 if suchnotice could not have been issued at that timeon account of being beyond the time limitspecified under the provisions of clause (b) ofsub-section (1) of Section 149 as they stoodimmediately before the commencement of theFinance Act, 2021. As per this proviso thus nonotice under Section 148 would be issued forthe past assessment years by resorting to thelarger period of limitation prescribed in newlysubstituted clause (b) of Section 149(1). Thiswould indicate that the notice that would beissued after 01.04.2021 would be in terms ofthe substituted Section 149(1) but withoutbreaching the upper time limit provided in theoriginal Section 149(1) which stood substituted.This aspect has also been highlighted in thememorandumexplainingtheproposedprovisions in the Finance Bill. If according to therevenue for past period provisions of section149 before amendment were applicable, thisfirst proviso to section 149(1) was whollyunnecessary. Looked from both angles, namely,no indication of surviving the past provisionsafter the substitution and in fact an activeindication to the contrary, inescapableconclusion that we must arrive at is that for anyaction of issuance of notice under Section 148after 01.04.2021 the newly introducedprovisions under the Finance Act, 2021 wouldapply. Mere extension of time limits for issuingnotice under section 148 would not change thisposition that obtains in law. Under nocircumstances the extended period available inclause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 149which we may recall now stands at 10 yearsinstead of 6 years previously available with therevenue, can be pressed in service forreopening assessments for the past period. Thisflows from the plain meaning of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 149. In plainterms a notice which had become time barredprior to 01.04.2021 as per the then prevailingprovisions, would not be revived by virtue ofthe application of Section 149(1)(b) effectivefrom 01.04.2021. All the notices issued in thepresent cases are after 01.04.2021 and havebeen issued without following the procedurecontained in Section 148A of the Act and aretherefore invalid. 38.The second question framed by us arisesin this context. Would the explanation containedin both the notifications of CBDT dated31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 save the situationfor the revenue? to sub-section (1) of Section 149. In plainterms a notice which had become time barredprior to 01.04.2021 as per the then prevailingprovisions, would not be revived by virtue ofthe application of Section 149(1)(b) effectivefrom 01.04.2021. All the notices issued in thepresent cases are after 01.04.2021 and havebeen issued without following the procedurecontained in Section 148A of the Act and aretherefore invalid. 38.The second question framed by us arisesin this context. Would the explanation containedin both the notifications of CBDT dated31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 save the situationfor the revenue? 39.It is well settled that there is presumptionof constitutionality of a statute (refer to theConstitution Bench judgment in case of TheState of Jammu & Kashmir, Vs. Triloki NathKhosa and Ors., reported in AIR 1974 SC1). The said principle of presumption ofconstitutionality also applies to piece ofdelegated legislation. In case of St. JohnsTeachers Training Institute Vs. RegionalDirector, National Council For TeachersEducation and Another, reported in (2003)3 SCC 321, it was observed that it is wellsettled in considering the vires of subordinatelegislation one should start with thepresumption that it is intra vires and if it is opento two constructions, one of which would makeit valid and other invalid, the courts must adoptthat construction which makes it valid. Howeverit is equally well settled that the subordinatelegislation does not enjoy same level ofimmunity as the law framed by the Parliamentor the State Legislature. The law framed by theParliament or the State Legislature can bechallenged only on the grounds of being beyondthe legislative competence or being contrary tothe fundamental rights or any otherconstitutional provisions. Third ground ofchallenge which is now recognized in thejudgment in case of Shayara Bano Vs Unionof India reported in 2017 9 SCC 1 is oflegislation being manifestly arbitrary. Asubordinate legislation can be challenged on allthese grounds as well as on the grounds that itdoes not conform to the statute under which itis made or that it is inconsistent with theprovisions of the Act or it is contrary to some ofthe statutes applicable on the subject matter. Incase of J.K. Industries Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2007)13 SCC 673, it was observed as under:- “63. At the outset, we may state that onaccount of globalization and socio-economicproblems (including income disparities in oureconomy) the power of Delegation has becomea constituent element of legislative power as awhole. However, as held in the case of IndianExpress Newspaper v. Union of India reported in(1985) 1 SCC 641 at page 689, subordinatelegislation does not carry the same degree ofimmunity which is enjoyed by a statute passedby a competent Legislature. Subordinatelegislation may be questioned on any of thegrounds on which plenary legislation isquestioned. In addition, it may also bequestioned on the ground that it does notconform to the statute under which it is made.It may further be questioned on the ground thatit is inconsistent with the provisions of the Actor that it is contrary to some other statuteapplicable on the same subject matter.Therefore, it has to yield to plenary legislation.It can also be questioned on the ground that itis manifestly arbitrary and unjust. That, anyinquiry into its vires must be confined to thegrounds on which plenary legislation may bequestioned, to the grounds that it is contrary tothe statute under which it is made, to thegrounds that it is contrary to other statutoryprovisions or on the ground that it is so patentlyarbitrary that it cannot be said to beinconformity with the statute. It can also bechallenged on the ground that it violates Article14 of the Constitution.” 40.With this background we may revert to theRelaxation Act, 2020 and the two notificationsissued by the CBDT. We may recall, under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act,2020 while extending the time limits for takingaction and making compliances in the specifiedActs upto 31.12.2020 the power was given tothe Central Government to extend the timefurther by issuing a notification. This was theonly power vested in the Central Government.As a piece of delegated legislation thenotifications issued in exercise of such powers,had to be within the confines of such powers. Inplain terms under sub-section (1) of Section 3of the Relaxation Act, 2020 the Government ofIndia was authorized to extend the time limitsby issuing notifications in this regard. Issuingany explanation touching the provisions of the Income Tax Act was not part of this delegationat all. The CBDT while issuing the notificationsdated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 whenintroduced an explanation which provided byway of clarification that for the purposes ofissuance of notice under Section 148 as per thetime limits specified in Section 149 or 151, theprovisions as they stood as on 31.03.2021before commencement of the Finance Act, 2021shall apply, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as asubordinate legislation. The subordinatelegislation could not have travelled beyond thepowers vested in the Government of India bythe parent Act. Even otherwise it is extremelydoubtful whether the explanation in the guise ofclarification can change the very basis of thestatutory provisions. If the plain meaning of thestatutory provision and its interpretation isclear, by adopting a position different in anexplanation and describing it to be clarificatory,the subordinate legislature cannot be permittedto amend the provisions of the parent Act.Accordingly,theseexplanationsareunconstitutional and declared as invalid.41.As noted, two Division Benches ofAllahabad and Delhi High Courts have takensimilar view. Two learned Single Judges ofCalcutta and this High Court have followed thistrend. Independently also we hold the samebeliefs. As noted earlier we are conscious thatSingle Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court inPalak Khatuja (supra) has taken a differentview. The view of the High Court was that theimpugned notices were valid since by virtue ofnotifications dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021the application of Section 148 which wasoriginally existing before amendment wasdeferred. It was further observed as under:- “Reading of the aforesaid notification wouldshow that it was issued in exercise of powerconferred under the Taxation and other Laws(Relaxation and Amendment of CertainProvisions) Act, 2020 and time for issuance ofnotice under Section 148, the end date wasinitially extended uptill on 30th day of April2021 and subsequently again by notificationdated 27th April, 2021 the time limit of 30thday of April 2021 was further extended up till30th day of June, 2021. By effect of suchnotification, the individual identity of Section148, which was prevailing prior to amendmentand insertion of section 148A was insulated andsaved uptill 30.06.2021.” With respect, we are unable to persuadeourselves to accept this analysis of thesituation. In our understanding by virtue ofnotifications dated 31.03.2021 and 01.04.2021issued by CBDT substitution of reassessmentprovisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021were not deferred nor could they have beendeferred. The date of such amendments cominginto effect remained 01.04.2021. 42.In the result we find that the noticesimpugned in the respective petitions are invalidand bad in law. The same are quashed and setaside. The learned Single Judge committed noerror in quashing these notices. All the writpetitions are allowed. Appeals of the revenueare dismissed. Pending applications if any standdisposed of." With respect, we are unable to persuadeourselves to accept this analysis of thesituation. In our understanding by virtue ofnotifications dated 31.03.2021 and 01.04.2021issued by CBDT substitution of reassessmentprovisions framed under the Finance Act, 2021were not deferred nor could they have beendeferred. The date of such amendments cominginto effect remained 01.04.2021. 42.In the result we find that the noticesimpugned in the respective petitions are invalidand bad in law. The same are quashed and setaside. The learned Single Judge committed noerror in quashing these notices. All the writpetitions are allowed. Appeals of the revenueare dismissed. Pending applications if any standdisposed of." We have heard counsel for the parties and we are in fullagreement with the judgment passed by the Co-ordinateBench of this Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja (Supra). In the result, we find that the notices impugned in therespective petitions are invalid and bad in law and the sameare quashed and set aside and at the same time, we find thatthe learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality inquashing these notices. Hence, all the writ petitions standsallowed and all the special appeals filed by the Income TaxAuthorities are di