Sukhdev International Private Limited v. Connected With

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 652/2022 Sukhdev International Private Limited, Through The Director,Hitendra Goyal S/o Shri Shyamlalji Goyal, Aged 50 Years, B-94,Krishna Nagar, Pali Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.2. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Circle-2, Income TaxDepartment, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10258/2021 LRs Of Anil Poonia, Through Legal Heir Smt. Saroj Kumari (Wife)Resident Of Village Chandgothi, Tehsil Sadupur, Distt. Churu -331023 (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer, Churu, Ward-1, Behind Collectorate,Shekhawat Colony, Churu - 331001 (Rajasthan). ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11940/2021 Ajay Kumar Agarwal S/o Jagdish Lal Agarwal, Aged About 56Years, Resident Of Hindustan Ceramic Distributors, Outside DelhiGate, Dewali (Rural), Udaipur ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, C-2, Udaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16038/2021 Ashok Jain S/o Sh. Kanhaya Lal Jain, Aged About 63 Years, 10,Kumar Complex, C/o Dial And Travel, D Road, Sardarpura,Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (1), Income TaxDepartment, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota 'c' Road, Jodhpur -342 010.Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota 'c' Road, Jodhpur -342 010. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16073/2021 M/s. Janki Corp Limited, Through The Director, Harish Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, Mandpiya Chouraha, Chittor Road,Bhilwara 311001 (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Department,Kawa Khera Chourha, Shashtri Nagar, Bhilwara.Kawa Khera Chourha, Shashtri Nagar, Bhilwara. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16085/2021 M/s. Janki Corp Ltd., Through The Director, Harish Sharma S/oAshok Kumar Sharma, Mandpiya Churaha, Bhilwara 311001(Raj.). ----PetitionerVersus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Income Tax Department,Kawa Khera Chourha, Shashtri Nagar, Bhilwara.Kawa Khera Chourha, Shashtri Nagar, Bhilwara. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16104/2021 M/s. Janki Corp Limited, Through The Director, Harish Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, Mandpiya Chouraha, Chittor Road,Bhilwara 311001 (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Department,Kawa Khera Chourha, Shashtri Nagar, Bhilwara. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16331/2021 Anncarol Simon W/o Angelo Mark Simon, Aged About 44 Years,Simon Bungalow, Jhalamand, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New DelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (1), Income TaxDepartment, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur -342 010.Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur -342 010. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16355/2021 Angelo Mark Simon S/o Sh. Anthony Milton Simon, Aged About44 Years, Simon Bungalow, Jhalamand, Jodhpur. ----PetitionerVersus ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16331/2021 Anncarol Simon W/o Angelo Mark Simon, Aged About 44 Years,Simon Bungalow, Jhalamand, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New DelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (1), Income TaxDepartment, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur -342 010.Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur -342 010. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16355/2021 Angelo Mark Simon S/o Sh. Anthony Milton Simon, Aged About44 Years, Simon Bungalow, Jhalamand, Jodhpur. ----PetitionerVersus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Income TaxDepartment, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur -342010.Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur -342010. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16743/2021 M/s Saileela Processors Private Ltd., Village Gudda, Mandal,Bhilwara - 311405 (Raj.) Through Director Nand Lal Jalan S/oRadha Kishan Jalan Age 55 Years ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New DelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Department,Kawa Khera Chouraha, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.)Kawa Khera Chouraha, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16754/2021 Tulsi Devi Bhootra W/o Late Shri Om Prakash Bhootra, AgedAbout 58 Years, R/o. Near Maheshwari Nyati Nohra, MasuriaJodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New DelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Income Tax Department,Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16760/2021 Ganga Steels, Through The Partner, Jitendra Jain S/o BabulaljiJain, Aged About 45 Years, A-2A38, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur(Raj.). ----PetitionerVersus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Income TaxDepartment, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17649/2021 Prakash Soni S/o Gajraj Soni, Aged About 29 Years, BhakraniyoKa Mohalla, Janpath Marg, Merta City, Nagaur, Rajasthan. ----PetitionerVersus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.2. The Income Tax Office, Ward - 1, Income TaxDepartment, Nagour, Rajasthan - 341001Department, Nagour, Rajasthan - 341001 ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17667/2021 Kaushaliya Devi Soni W/o Rohit Kumar Soni, Aged About 49Years, Bhakraniyo Ka Bass Sunaro Ka Bass, Merta City, Nagaur, ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New DelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Income TaxDepartment, Nagaur, Rajasthan - 341001.Department, Nagaur, Rajasthan - 341001. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17714/2021 Bhoodhara Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Through The Director, SanjaySancheti S/o Gihari Lal Sancheti, Aged 47 Years 4 Mahaviram,New Mahavir Nagar H M Sec, Near Chirag Complex, Udaipur,Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17667/2021 Kaushaliya Devi Soni W/o Rohit Kumar Soni, Aged About 49Years, Bhakraniyo Ka Bass Sunaro Ka Bass, Merta City, Nagaur, ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New DelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Income TaxDepartment, Nagaur, Rajasthan - 341001.Department, Nagaur, Rajasthan - 341001. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17714/2021 Bhoodhara Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Through The Director, SanjaySancheti S/o Gihari Lal Sancheti, Aged 47 Years 4 Mahaviram,New Mahavir Nagar H M Sec, Near Chirag Complex, Udaipur,Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Income TaxDepartment, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313001.Department, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313001. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17796/2021 Barju Devi Singariya W/o Late Shri Pratap Ram Singariya,Singariya, Aged About 76 Years, Singariya Ka Bass, Sojat, Pali(Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Income Tax Department,Mandia Road, Pali.Mandia Road, Pali. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17805/2021 Hari Om Developers, Through The Partner, Mahendra Kumar SoniS/o Prabhulalji Son, Sabji Mandi, Sheoganj, Sirohi (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, RajivNagar Colony, Sirohi.Nagar Colony, Sirohi. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17806/2021 Mahendra Kumar Soni S/o Prabhulal Soni, Aged About 46 Years,Near Gajanandji Mandir, Sheoganj, Sirohi (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New DelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, RajivNagar Colony, Sirohi.Nagar Colony, Sirohi. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17816/2021 Tara Devi Soni W/o Prabhu Ram Soni, Aged About 67 Years,Chhawani, Sheoganj, Sirohi (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, RajivNagar Colony, Sirohi.Nagar Colony, Sirohi. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17823/2021 Prabhu Ram Soni S/o Tulsi Ram Soni, Aged About 70 Years,Agresen Marg, Sheoganj, Sirohi (Raj.). ----PetitionerVersus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New DelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, RajivNagar Colony, Sirohi.Nagar Colony, Sirohi. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17834/2021 Jinal Soni W/o Mahendra Kumar Soni, Aged About 44 Years,Chhawani, Sheoganj, Sirohi (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, RajivNagar Colony, Sirohi.Nagar Colony, Sirohi. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17885/2021 Meenakshi Soni W/o Bharat Kumari Soni, Aged About 34 Years,4, Nai Basti Bhuti, Ahore, Jalore (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, RajivNagar Colony, Sirohi.Nagar Colony, Sirohi. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17834/2021 Jinal Soni W/o Mahendra Kumar Soni, Aged About 44 Years,Chhawani, Sheoganj, Sirohi (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, RajivNagar Colony, Sirohi.Nagar Colony, Sirohi. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17885/2021 Meenakshi Soni W/o Bharat Kumari Soni, Aged About 34 Years,4, Nai Basti Bhuti, Ahore, Jalore (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Department,Shivaji Nagar, Jalore.Shivaji Nagar, Jalore. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17892/2021 Bharat Kumar Soni S/o Pukhrajji Soni, Aged About 35 Years, 4,Nai Basti Bhuti, Ahore, Jalore (Raj.). ----PetitionerVersus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income Tax Department,Shivaji Nagar, Jalore.Shivaji Nagar, Jalore. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18112/2021 Omprakash Agarwal S/o Tarachand Agarwal, Aged About 60Years, 6, Jai Shiv Chowk, Makrana 341505 (Raj.) District Nagaur. ----Petitioner 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward-1,Nagaur (Raj.)Nagaur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 468/2022 Puneet Pahwa Huf, Through Karta, Puneet Pahwa S/o SubhashPahwa, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 403, 403 Golden Palm, B-69,Yash Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302 001 (Raj.) At Present R/o104, Vrindavan Vihar, 1St Floor, Gagan Path, Sri Ganganagar -335 001 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer (Ito), Ward 7(1), Income Tax Department,Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 655/2022 Ritu Logistics, Through The Partner, Hitendra Goyal S/o ShriShyamlalji Goyal, Aged 50 Years, A-56, Krishna Nagar, New PaliRoad, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----PetitionerVersus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.2. The Assistant Commissioner/dy. Commissioner, CentralCircle-2, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.Circle-2, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 660/2022 Ritu Logistics, Through The Partner, Hitendra Goyal Aged 50Years, S/o Shri Shyamlalji Goyal A-56, Krishna Nagar, New PaliRoad, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.2. The Assistant Commissioner / Dy. Commissioner, Central Circle - 2, Income Tax Department, Paota C- Road,Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 671/2022 Ritu International Private Limited, Through The Director,Hitendra Goyal Aged 50 Years, S/o Shri Shyamlalji Goyal B-94,Krishna Nagar, Pali Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.2. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Circle - 2, Income TaxDepartment, Paota C- Road, Jodhpur.Department, Paota C- Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 672/2022 Circle - 2, Income Tax Department, Paota C- Road,Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 671/2022 Ritu International Private Limited, Through The Director,Hitendra Goyal Aged 50 Years, S/o Shri Shyamlalji Goyal B-94,Krishna Nagar, Pali Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.2. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Circle - 2, Income TaxDepartment, Paota C- Road, Jodhpur.Department, Paota C- Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 672/2022 Ritu Logistics, Through The Partner, Hitendra Goyal S/o ShriShyamlalji Goyal, Aged 50 Years, A-56, Krishna Nagar, New PaliRoad, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.2. The Assistant Commissioner/dy. Commissioner, CentralCircle-2, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.----RespondentsCircle-2, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 675/2022 Ritu Logistics, Through The Partner, Hitendra Goyal S/o ShriShyamlalji Goyal, Aged 50 Years, A-56, Krishna Nagar, New PaliRoad, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.2. The Assistant Commissioner/dy. Commissioner, CentralCircle-2, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.Circle-2, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17914/2021 M/s. Himalaya Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., 202, Poonam Complex, 2[nd]Floor, 179, 3Rd C Road Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Through TheDirector Bhoor Chand Jirawala, Aged About 68 Years R/o A -120, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi 2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, C-3,Income Tax Department, Jodhpur (Raj.)Income Tax Department, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17917/2021 Mahaveer Chand Parakh S/o Jawarilal Pararkh, Aged About 49Years, R/o 116, Udaipuriya Bazar, Pali Marwar (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi. 2. Income Tax Officer, W-1, Mandia Road, Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1544/2022 Vyas Colonisers Private Ltd., Through Director Manish VyasS/o Shri Gordhan Das Ji Vyas, By Caste Brahmin, AgedAbout 56 Years, Teesra Prahar Bhawan, 1St A Road,Sardarpura, Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Income Tax Department, Paota C-Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17850/2021 Manju Devi Goyal D/o Shri Naryan Das, Aged About 54Years, R/o Plot No. 55, Opp Khansa Garage, Lal Laj PatColony Chopasani Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Jodhpur, AykarBhawan, Jodhpur (Raj.).Bhawan, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16812/2021 Sachin Lodha S/o Late Shri Rikhab Raj, Aged About 50Years, R/o. B-60 Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Income Tax Department, Paota C-Road, Jodhpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17850/2021 Manju Devi Goyal D/o Shri Naryan Das, Aged About 54Years, R/o Plot No. 55, Opp Khansa Garage, Lal Laj PatColony Chopasani Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Jodhpur, AykarBhawan, Jodhpur (Raj.).Bhawan, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16812/2021 Sachin Lodha S/o Late Shri Rikhab Raj, Aged About 50Years, R/o. B-60 Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department,Ward-3 (1), Jodhpur (Raj.)Ward-3 (1), Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16814/2021 Rahul Chhabra (HUF) S/o Shri Kanwarilal Chhabra, AgedAbout 42 Years, B-218, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.)311001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward-1, Kawa Khera Chourha, Shastri Nagar,Bhilwara (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16816/2021 M/s Silver Fab Suitings Pvt, 9, New Cloth Market, PurRoad, Bhilwara, Through The Director Shri Sushil KumarChrodia S/o Shri Sampat Lal Chordia Aged 41 Years. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income TaxDepartment, Kawa Khera Chourha, Shastri Nagar,Bhilwara (Raj.).Department, Kawa Khera Chourha, Shastri Nagar,Bhilwara (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16828/2021 M/s Lakhpat Trading And Industrys Private Limited,Through Director - Shri Dalpat Bhandari, S/o. Late ShriHastimal Bhandari, Aged About 63 Years, G-72/73 79/80,1St Phase Boranada, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----PetitionerVersus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3,Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur(Raj.)Income Tax Department, Paota C Road, Jodhpur(Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16831/2021 M/s. Saraansh Suitings Private Limited, 10, New ClothMarket, Pur Road, Bilwara (Raj.) Through The Director ShriSandeep Kumar Chordia S/o Shri Sampat Lal ChordiaAged 38 Years ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income TaxDepartment, Kawa Khera Chouraha, Shastri Nagar,Bhilwara (Raj.)Department, Kawa Khera Chouraha, Shastri Nagar,Bhilwara (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16871/2021 M/s Navkar Alloy Pvt. Ltd., F-427, M.i.a., 2Nd Phase,Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.) Through Its Director Shri JayantilalJain S/o Shri Champalal Jain, Aged About 54 Years, R/o37, Narpat Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department,Ward-1(1), Jodhpur (Raj.).Ward-1(1), Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16879/2021 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Income TaxDepartment, Kawa Khera Chouraha, Shastri Nagar,Bhilwara (Raj.)Department, Kawa Khera Chouraha, Shastri Nagar,Bhilwara (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16871/2021 M/s Navkar Alloy Pvt. Ltd., F-427, M.i.a., 2Nd Phase,Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.) Through Its Director Shri JayantilalJain S/o Shri Champalal Jain, Aged About 54 Years, R/o37, Narpat Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department,Ward-1(1), Jodhpur (Raj.).Ward-1(1), Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16879/2021 M/s. Vinod Commodities Ltd., 401, Ligh Vinod Towers,Main Chopasani Road, Jodhpur Through Its Director VinodSinghvi S/o Umaid Mal Singhvi, Aged About 50 Years, R/o3, Pal Link Road, Near K.n. Hospital, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----PetitionerVersus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department,Ward-3(1), Jodhpur (Raj.)Ward-3(1), Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16881/2021 M/s. Vinod Commodities Ltd., 401, Ligh Vinod Towers, Main Chopasani Road, Jodhpur Through Its Director VinodSinghvi S/o Umaid Mal Singhvi, Aged About 50 Years, R/o3, Pal Link Road, Near K.n. Hospital, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department,Ward-3(1), Jodhpur (Raj.)Ward-3(1), Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16952/2021 M/s Arihant Sharecom Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director ShriGautam Jain S/o Late Shri Gyanchand Jain, Aged About 44Years, R/o 441 A, Anant Ram Ji Ki Bagehci, 2Nd C Road,Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department,Ward-3 (1) Jodhpur (Raj.).Ward-3 (1) Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17289/2021 M/s. Navkar Alloy Pvt. Ltd., F-427, M.i.a., 2Nd Phase,Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.) Through Its Director Shri JayantilalJain, S/o Shri Champalal Jain, Aged About 54 Years, R/o37, Narpat Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department,Ward-1, Jodhpur (Raj.)Ward-1, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17707/2021 Nawal Kishore S/o Shri Lakshman Ram, Aged About 47Years, R/o. Bhoodha Tala, Bhiyad District- Barmer (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle (Intl-Tax) Jaipur, (Raj.)Tax) Jaipur, (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17724/2021 Vinod Purohit S/o Late Shri Devi Singh Purohit, AgedAbout 60 Years, R/o. 112, Abhaygarh Shceme, OppCentral School, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, CentralCircle-1, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road,Jodhpur (Raj.)Circle-1, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road,Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle (Intl-Tax) Jaipur, (Raj.)Tax) Jaipur, (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17724/2021 Vinod Purohit S/o Late Shri Devi Singh Purohit, AgedAbout 60 Years, R/o. 112, Abhaygarh Shceme, OppCentral School, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, CentralCircle-1, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road,Jodhpur (Raj.)Circle-1, Income Tax Department, Paota C Road,Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17758/2021 Vinod Purohit S/o Late Shri Devi Singh Purohit, AgedAbout 60 Years, R/o. 112, Abhaygarh Scheme, OppCentral School, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhiFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur, Income Tax Department, Paota CRoad, Jodhpur (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17887/2021Prakash Jain S/o Shri Ambalal Jain, Aged About 57 Years,R/o 1, Udaipur Road, Fateh Nagar, Udaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi.Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, NewDelhi. 2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, IncomeTax Department, Circle-2, Udaipur (Raj.).Tax Department, Circle-2, Udaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS 28/01/2022 Order These writ petitions involve identical issues. The petitionersassessees have challenged respective notices of re-assessmentissued by the assessing officer. All these notices are issued after01.04.2021 and pertain to the assessment period prior to the saiddate. According to the petitioners, these notices are issued under the provisions for re-assessment contained in the Income Tax Act,1961, which prevailed period prior to 01.04.2021, in particular, innone of these cases the procedure laid down under Section 148-Aof the Income Tax Act, which was inserted with effect from01.04.2021 by the Finance Act, has been followed. Thepetitioners have, therefore, challenged the validity of thesenotices. The revenue does not dispute these factual averments of thepetitioners. In a judgment delivered yesterday i.e. 27.01.2022 in thecase of Sudesh Taneja vs. Income Tax Officer and others[D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022], the Division Bench inthe identical circumstances quashed the impugned notices of re-assessment making following observations: the provisions for re-assessment contained in the Income Tax Act,1961, which prevailed period prior to 01.04.2021, in particular, innone of these cases the procedure laid down under Section 148-Aof the Income Tax Act, which was inserted with effect from01.04.2021 by the Finance Act, has been followed. Thepetitioners have, therefore, challenged the validity of thesenotices. The revenue does not dispute these factual averments of thepetitioners. In a judgment delivered yesterday i.e. 27.01.2022 in thecase of Sudesh Taneja vs. Income Tax Officer and others[D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022], the Division Bench inthe identical circumstances quashed the impugned notices of re-assessment making following observations: “37. In this context we have perused the provisions ofreassessment contained in the Finance Act, 2021. Wehave noticed earlier the major departure that the newscheme of reassessment has made under theseprovisions. The time limits for issuing notice forreassessment have been changed. The concept ofincome chargeable to tax escaping assessment onaccount of failure on the part of the assessee to disclosetruly or fully all material facts is no longer relevant.Elaborate provisions are made under Section 148A of theAct enabling the Assessing Officer to make enquiry withrespect to material suggesting that income has escapedassessment, issuance of notice to the assessee callingupon why notice under Section 148 should not be issuedand passing an order considering the material availableon record including response of the assessee if madewhile deciding whether the case is fit for issuing noticeunder Section 148. There is absolutely no indication in allthese provisions which would suggest that the legislatureintended that the new scheme of reopening ofassessments would be applicable only to the period post01.04.2021. In absence of any such indication all noticeswhich were issued after 01.04.2021 had to be inaccordance with such provisions. To reiterate, we find noindication whatsoever in the scheme of statutory provisions suggesting that the past provisions wouldcontinue to apply even after the substitution for theassessment periods prior to substitution. In fact thereare strong indications to the contrary. We may recall,that time limits for issuing notice under Section 148 ofthe Act have been modified under substituted Section149. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 149reduces such period to three years instead of originallyprevailing four years under normal circumstances.Clause (b) extends the upper limit of six years previouslyprevailing to ten years in cases where income chargeableto tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or islikely to amount to 50 lacs or more. Sub-section (1) ofSection 149 thus contracts as well as expands the timelimit for issuing notice under Section 148 depending onthe question whether the case falls under clause (a) orclause (b). In this context the first proviso to Section149(1) provides that no notice under Section 148 shallbe issued at any time in a case for the relevantassessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2021 ifsuch notice could not have been issued at that time onaccount of being beyond the time limit specified underthe provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section149 as they stood immediately before thecommencement of the Finance Act, 2021. As per thisproviso thus no notice under Section 148 would beissued for the past assessment years by resorting to thelarger period of limitation prescribed in newly substitutedclause (b) of Section 149(1). This would indicate thatthe notice that would be issued after 01.04.2021 wouldbe in terms of the substituted Section 149(1) but withoutbreaching the upper time limit provided in the originalSection 149(1) which stood substituted. This aspect hasalso been highlighted in the memorandum explaining theproposed provisions in the Finance Bill. If according tothe revenue for past period provisions of section 149before amendment were applicable, this first proviso tosection 149(1) was wholly unnecessary. Looked fromboth angles, namely, no indication of surviving the pastprovisions after the substitution and in fact an activeindication to the contrary, inescapable conclusion that wemust arrive at is that for any action of issuance of noticeunder Section 148 after 01.04.2021 the newlyintroduced provisions under the Finance Act, 2021 wouldapply. Mere extension of time limits for issuing noticeunder section 148 would not change this position thatobtains in law. Under no circumstances the extendedperiod available in clause (b) of sub-section (1) ofSection 149 which we may recall now stands at 10 yearsinstead of 6 years previously available with the revenue,can be pressed in service for reopening assessments forthe past period. This flows from the plain meaning of thefirst proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 149. In plain terms a notice which had become time barred prior to01.04.2021 as per the then prevailing provisions, wouldnot be revived by virtue of the application of Section149(1)(b) effective from 01.04.2021. All the noticesissued in the present cases are after 01.04.2021 andhave been issued without following the procedurecontained in Section 148A of the Act and are thereforeinvalid. 38.The second question framed by us arises in thiscontext. Would the explanation contained in both thenotifications of CBDT dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021save the situation for the revenue? terms a notice which had become time barred prior to01.04.2021 as per the then prevailing provisions, wouldnot be revived by virtue of the application of Section149(1)(b) effective from 01.04.2021. All the noticesissued in the present cases are after 01.04.2021 andhave been issued without following the procedurecontained in Section 148A of the Act and are thereforeinvalid. 38.The second question framed by us arises in thiscontext. Would the explanation contained in both thenotifications of CBDT dated 31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021save the situation for the revenue? 39.It is well settled that there is presumption ofconstitutionality of a statute (refer to the ConstitutionBench judgment in case of The State of Jammu &Kashmir, Vs. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., reportedin AIR 1974 SC 1). The said principle of presumption ofconstitutionality also applies to piece of delegatedlegislation. In case of St. Johns Teachers TrainingInstitute Vs. Regional Director, National CouncilFor Teachers Education and Another, reported in(2003) 3 SCC 321, it was observed that it is wellsettled in considering the vires of subordinate legislationone should start with the presumption that it is intravires and if it is open to two constructions, one of whichwould make it valid and other invalid, the courts mustadopt that construction which makes it valid. However itis equally well settled that the subordinate legislationdoes not enjoy same level of immunity as the law framedby the Parliament or the State Legislature. The lawframed by the Parliament or the State Legislature can bechallenged only on the grounds of being beyond thelegislative competence or being contrary to thefundamental rights or any other constitutionalprovisions. Third ground of challenge which is nowrecognized in the judgment in case of Shayara Bano VsUnion of India reported in 2017 9 SCC 1 is oflegislation being manifestly arbitrary. A subordinatelegislation can be challenged on all these grounds as wellas on the grounds that it does not conform to the statuteunder which it is made or that it is inconsistent with theprovisions of the Act or it is contrary to some of thestatutes applicable on the subject matter. In case of J.K.Industries Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India andOrs., reported in (2007) 13 SCC 673, it was observedas under:- “63. At the outset, we may state that on accountof globalization and socio-economic problems(including income disparities in our economy)the power of Delegation has become aconstituent element of legislative power as awhole. However, as held in the case of Indian Express 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. Itmay further be questioned on the ground that itis inconsistent with the provisions of the Act orthat it is contrary to some other statuteapplicable on the same subject matter.Therefore, it has to yield to plenary legislation. Itcan also be questioned on the ground that it ismanifestly 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 notifications issuedby the CBDT. We may recall, under sub-section (1) ofSection 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020 while extendingthe time limits for taking action and makingcompliances in the specified Acts upto 31.12.2020 thepower was given to the Central Government to extendthe time further by issuing a notification. This was theonly power vested in the Central Government. As apiece of delegated legislation the notifications issuedin exercise of such powers, had to be within theconfines of such powers. In plain terms under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Relaxation Act, 2020the Government of India was authorized to extend thetime limits by issuing notifications in this regard.Issuing any explanation touching the provisions of theIncome Tax Act was not part of this delegation at all.The CBDT while issuing the notifications dated31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 when introduced anexplanation which provided by way of clarification thatfor the purposes of issuance of notice under Section148 as per the time limits specified in Section 149 or151, the provisions as they stood as on 31.03.2021before commencement of the Finance Act, 2021 shallapply, plainly exceeded its jurisdiction as asubordinate legislation. The subordinate legislation could not have travelled beyond the powers vested inthe Government of India by the parent Act. Evenotherwise it is extremely doubtful whether theexplanation in the guise of clarification can change thevery basis of the statutory provisions. If the plainmeaning of the statutory provision and itsinterpretation is clear, by adopting a position differentin an explanation and describing it to be clarificatory,the subordinate legislature cannot be permitted toamend the provisions of the parent Act. Accordingly,these explanations are unconstitutional and declaredas invalid.41.As noted, two Division Benches of Allahabad andDelhi High Courts have taken similar view. Twolearned Single Judges of Calcutta and this High Courthave followed this trend. Independently also we holdthe same beliefs. As noted earlier we are consciousthat Single Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court in PalakKhatuja (supra) has taken a different view. Theview of the High Court was that the impugned noticeswere valid since by virtue of notifications dated31.03.2021 and 27.04.2021 the application of Section148 which was originally existing before amendmentwas deferred. 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 April 2021and subsequently again by notification dated27th April, 2021 the time limit of 30th day ofApril 2021 was further extended up till 30th dayof June, 2021. By effect of such notification, theindividual identity of Section 148, which wasprevailing prior to amendment and insertion ofsection 148A was insulated and saved uptill30.06.2021.” With respect, we are unable to persuadeourselves to accept this analysis of the situation. Inour understanding by virtue of notifications dated31.03.2021 and 01.04.2021 issued by CBDTsubstitution of reassessment provisions framed underthe Finance Act, 2021 were not deferred nor couldthey have been deferred. The date of suchamendments coming into effect remained 01.04.2021.42.In the result we find that the notices impugnedin the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law.The same are quashed and set aside. The learnedSingle Judge committed no error in quashing thesenotices. All the writ petitions are allowed. Appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Pending applications if anystand disposed of.” With respect, we are unable to persuadeourselves to accept this analysis of the situation. Inour understanding by virtue of notifications dated31.03.2021 and 01.04.2021 issued by CBDTsubstitution of reassessment provisions framed underthe Finance Act, 2021 were not deferred nor couldthey have been deferred. The date of suchamendments coming into effect remained 01.04.2021.42.In the result we find that the notices impugnedin the respective petitions are invalid and bad in law.The same are quashed and set aside. The learnedSingle Judge committed no error in quashing thesenotices. All the writ petitions are allowed. Appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Pending applications if anystand disposed of.” Under the circumstances, without recording separatereasons, all respective impugned notices challenged in thesepetitions are quashed. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. (MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J(AKIL KURESHI),CJ 93to122,1,2,8,c/1to15-MohitTak/-