2021 (8) TMI 885 - 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 the Constitutionality of certain provisions of CBDT Notifications, Similar petitions entertained by various High Courts, Interim protection granted to petitioners, Permission for respondents to file a reply, Stay on coercive action against the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner has challenged the Constitutionality of certain provisions of CBDT Notifications No.20/2021 and No.38/2021. Similar challenges have been made before various High Courts, including 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. As a result, the respondents are allowed to file a reply, and no coercive action is to be taken against the petitioner until the next hearing date. The case is listed for analogous hearing along with other related cases.