2021 (8) TMI 886 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Assessment time barred - applicability of the newly inserted provisions of Section 148A and the amendments brought inter alia in Section 149 - Constitutionality of certain provisions of CBDT Notification No.20/2021 dated 31.03.2021 and Notification No.38/2021 dated 27.04.2021 - HELD THAT - The similar challenge to Constitutionality of these provisions is made before the various High Courts. The High Court of Delhi in Mudra Finance Limited vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(1), Delhi 2021 (8) TMI 197 - DELHI HIGH COURT in Mon Mohan Kholi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Anr. 2021 (8) TMI 196 - DELHI HIGH COURT , Tata Communications Transformation Services Limited 2021 (8) TMI 196 - DELHI HIGH COURT and High Court of Calcutta in Babaria Properties and Investments Private Limited Anr. vs. Union of India and others. 2021 (8) TMI 788 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT have entertained the similar petitions and granted interim protection to the petitioners therein. As respondents prayed for time to file reply but did not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that similar petitions have been entertained by other High Courts and interim protection has been granted. Considering the aforesaid, the respondents are permitted to file reply in the matter. Till the next date of hearing, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notifications.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to Constitutionality of CBDT Notifications

The judgment by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh involved the challenge to the Constitutionality of certain provisions of CBDT Notifications No.20/2021 and No.38/2021. The petitioner's counsel argued that similar challenges were made in other High Courts as well, such as the High Court of Delhi, High Court of Bombay, and High Court of Calcutta, where interim protection was granted to the petitioners. The respondents did not dispute these contentions and requested time to file a reply. The court permitted the respondents to file a reply and ordered that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner until the next hearing date. The case was listed for analogous hearing along with other related cases.

The judgment highlighted the importance of addressing the Constitutionality of the provisions in the CBDT Notifications and the need for consistency in decisions across different High Courts. It emphasized the principle of granting interim protection to petitioners facing similar challenges in different jurisdictions to maintain fairness and prevent any coercive actions until the legal issues are resolved. The court's decision to allow the respondents to file a reply demonstrated procedural fairness and adherence to due process. By listing the case for analogous hearing with other related cases, the court aimed to streamline the judicial process and ensure a comprehensive examination of the legal issues involved. Overall, the judgment reflected a balanced approach to handling complex legal matters involving constitutional challenges and sought to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in the legal system.