2022 (2) TMI 1035 - 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 - Similar challenge to Constitutionality of these provisions is made before the various High Courts. The High Court of Delhi in Mudra Finance Limited 2021 (8) TMI 197 - DELHI HIGH COURT in Mon Mohan Kholi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Anr. 2021 (12) TMI 664 - DELHI HIGH COURT , and in Tata Communications Transformation Services Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1)(2), Mumbai Others 2021 (8) TMI 195 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and High Court of Calcutta in Babaria Properties and Investments Private Limited Anr. 2022 (1) TMI 742 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT have entertained the similar petitions and granted interim protection to the petitioners therein. Learned counsel for the 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.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the Constitutionality of certain provisions of CBDT Notifications No. 20/2021 and No. 38/2021.

Analysis:
The petition challenges the Constitutionality of specific provisions in CBDT Notifications No. 20/2021 and No. 38/2021. The Court notes that similar challenges have been raised in other High Courts as well, such as the High Court of Delhi, High Court of Bombay, and High Court of Calcutta. In those cases, interim protection was granted to the petitioners. The respondents did not dispute this fact and requested time to file a reply. Therefore, the Court allowed the respondents to file a reply and ordered that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner until the next hearing. The case is listed for analogous hearing along with another case.

This judgment primarily focuses on the issue of challenging the Constitutionality of certain provisions in CBDT Notifications. The Court acknowledges the similar challenges in other High Courts and the interim protection granted in those cases. The decision to allow the respondents to file a reply and to prevent coercive action against the petitioner until the next hearing demonstrates a cautious approach by the Court to ensure fairness and procedural justice. The order for analogous hearing indicates a desire for consistency and efficiency in addressing similar legal issues across different cases. The judgment reflects a balanced consideration of the parties' arguments and the legal precedents established in similar cases in other jurisdictions.