Full Judgment Text
$- 1 to 94, 96 to 152, 155-157, 159 to 174 and 177 (Section 148
matters)
* IN THE HIGH Court OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10/2022, CM APPL.16/2022 (Interim relief & CM
APPL.13602/2022 (condonation of delay)
SUMAN JEET AGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. Arta
Trana Panda, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD
61(1), & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr. Mr.Vipul
Agrawal and Mr.Parth Semwal,
Junior Standing Counsel for the
Revenue.
2
+ W.P.(C) 269/2022 & CM APPL.789/2022 (for stay)
SABHARWAL APARTMENTS PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE
22-2, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms. Mansie Jain,
Advocate.
3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 1 of 152
+ W.P.(C) 271/2022 & CM APPL.793/2022 (for stay)
SHANKAR GROWTH FUND PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Venketesh Mohan
Chaurasia, Advocates.
versus
ACIT, CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms. Mansie Jain, Advocate.
4
+ W.P.(C) 387/2022 & CM APPL.1117/2022 (for stay)
SOMNATH VIRMANI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sunil Kumar Mukhi,
Advocate.
versus
DCIT CIRCLE 13(1) DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel for Revenue.
5
+ W.P.(C) 440/2022 & CM APPL.1229/2022 (for stay)
S N ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Satyen Sethi & Mr.Arta
Trana Panda, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. SC with
Ms. Easha Kadian, Advocate.
6
+ W.P.(C) 471/2022 & CM APPL.1327/2022 (for stay)
S N ENTERPRISES ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 2 of 152
Through Mr.Satyen Sethi & Mr.Arta
Trana Panda, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 63(1) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. SC with
Ms. Easha Kadian, Advocate.
7
+ W.P.(C) 496/2022, CM APPL.1458/2022 (for stay) & CM
APPL.13601/2022 (condonation of delay)
ASHISH PODDAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Samyak Jain, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 54(1) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with
Mr. Mr.Vipul Agrawal and
Mr.Parth Semwal, Junior
Standing Counsel for the
Revenue.
8
+ W.P.(C) 511/2022 & CM APPL.1484/2022
SANTOSH INFRATECH
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22-3, DELHI & ORS.
..... Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 3 of 152
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.
Mr.Neeraj, Mr.Sahaj Garg,
Mr.Vedansh Anand, Mr.Rudra
Paliwal and Mr.Sanjay Pal,
Advs. for R-4.
Ms.Aakanksha Kaul, Mr.Manek
Singh, Mr.Aman Sahani,
Advocates for UOI.
9
+ W.P.(C) 576/2022 & CM APPL.1636/2022 (for stay)
MUKESH KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Purav Middha, Adv.
Versus
PR. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue.
10
+ W.P.(C) 592/2022 & CM APPL.1678/2022 (for stay)
SATISH SINGHAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Venketesh Mohan
Chaurasia, Advocates.
versus
ACIT, CIR 22(2), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 4 of 152
11
+ W.P.(C) 758/2022 & CM APPL.2160/2022 (for stay)
SANTOSH INFRATECH
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22-3,
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.
12
+ W.P.(C) 965/2022 & CM APPL.2752/2022 (for stay)
SULOCHNA GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Kapil Goel with
Mr.Sandeep Goel, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
43(1) DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.
13
+ W.P.(C) 795/2022 & CM APPL.2232/2022 (for stay)
RAJ KUMAR GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Kapil Goel with
Mr.Sandeep Goel, Advocates.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 5 of 152
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
43(1) & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with
Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC
with Mr. Karan Pandey,
Advocate.
14
+ W.P.(C) 856/2022 & CM No.2413/2022 (for stay)
ANAND GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Kapil Goel with
Mr.Sandeep Goel, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
43( 1) DELHI AND ORS. & ANR. .....
Respondents
Through Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with
Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC
with Mr. Karan Pandey,
Advocate.
15
+ W.P.(C) 900/2022 & CM No.2551/2022 (for stay)
DEEPAK GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Kapil Goel with
Mr.Sandeep Goel, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
43 1 DELHI AND ORS & ANR. ..... Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 6 of 152
Through Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv.
16
+ W.P.(C) 1057/2022 & CM APPL.3029/2022 (for stay)
ONE POINT REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19-1, DELHI & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with
Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC
with Mr. Karan Pandey,
Advocate.
Mr.Kamal Kant Jha, SPC for
UOI with Mr. Animesh Mani
Tripathi, Advocate.
17
+ W.P.(C) 1094/2022 & CM APPL.3117/2022 (for stay)
MARK GULATI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Nagesh Behl with Mr.
Ambrish Dhawan, Advocates.
versus
ITO WARD 52(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 7 of 152
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
18
+ W.P.(C) 1274/2022 & CM APPL.3729/2022 (for stay)
SYNAPE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE
22-2, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.
19
+ W.P.(C) 1380/2022 & CM APPL.4001/2022 (for stay)
SHALU AGRAWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 59-2, DELHI & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SC
with Mr.Shaliender Singh, Jr.
SC, Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 8 of 152
20
+ W.P.(C) 1381/2022 & CM APPL.4003/2022 (for stay)
SHALU AGRAWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 59-2,
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SC
with Mr.Shaliender Singh, Jr.
SC, Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.
21
+ W.P.(C) 1624/2022 & CM APPL.4727/2022 (for stay)
STAR WIRE INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Arnav Kumar, Mr. Rajat
Mittal, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
22 (2) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Mansie Jain,
Adv.
22
+ W.P.(C) 1650/2022 & CM APPL.4777/2022 (for stay)
M/S PERFECT POLYCHEM
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Arzoo Raj, Adv.
versus
OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 9 of 152
OFFICER ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.
23
+ W.P.(C) 1756/2022 & CM APPL.5066/2022 (for stay)
ONE HEIGHT COLONIZERS
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19-1,
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.
24
+ W.P.(C) 1759/2022
STAR WIRE INDIA LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Arnav Kumar, Mr. Rajat
Mittal, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
22(2), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms. Mansie Jain,
Adv.
25
+ W.P.(C) 1761/2022 & CM APPL.5073/2022 (for stay)
BTM EXPORTS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 10 of 152
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
CIRCLE 4-2 DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
26
+ W.P.(C) 1937/2022 & CM APPL.5566/2022 (for stay)
KESAR DASS ARORA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Nagesh Behl with Mr.
Ambrish Dhawan, Advocates.
versus
ITO WARD 62(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,
Jr. Standing Counsel for
Revenue.
27
+ W.P.(C) 2006/2022 & CM APPL.5758/2022 (for stay), CM
APPL. 13914/2022 (condonation of delay)
PRATYUSH HANDA ..... Petitioner
Through Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Mr.Somil
Agarwal & Mr.Anshul Mittal,
Advocates.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 11 of 152
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54(1),
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr.Vipul
Agarwal & Mr.Parth Semwal,
Jr. Standing Counsel.
28
+ W.P.(C) 2007/2022
AJAY GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sushil K Tekriwal and
Dr.Mamta Tekriwal, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv for
Revenue.
29
+ W.P.(C) 2012/2022
NIRAJ AGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sushil K Tekriwal and
Dr.Mamta Tekriwal, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr.
Standing Counsel with Mr.
Vipul Agarwal & Mr. Parth
Semwal, Jr. Standing Counsel.
30
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 12 of 152
+ W.P.(C) 2016/2022 & CM APPL.5765/2022 (for stay)
MEENA CHAWLA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Deepak Singh Thakur,
Mr.Ankit Kashyap &
Mr.Shubham Bhardwaj and Mr.
Navjot Singh, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 61(1),
DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
31
+ W.P.(C) 2087/2022 & CM APPL.5992/2022 (for stay)
JASWANT RAI GROVER ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Paras Chaudhry &
Mr.Dhananjay Grover, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv for
Revenue.
32
+ W.P.(C) 2137/2022 & CM APPL.6149/2022 (for interim
relief), CM APPL. 13913/2022 (for condonation of delay)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 13 of 152
PRATYUSH HANDA ..... Petitioner
Through Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Mr.Somil
Agarwal & Mr.Anshul Mittal,
Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 54(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with
Mr. Mr.Vipul Agrawal and
Mr.Parth Semwal, Junior
Standing Counsel for the
Revenue.
33
+ W.P.(C) 2238/2022 & CM APPL.6435/2022 (for exemption)
ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA HUF ..... Petitioner
Through Ms.Mitika Choudhary, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD
59(2) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.
Standing Counsel with
Mr.Shailendra Singh, Mr.Udit
Sharma, Advocate for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Avnish Singh, SCGC for
R-2/UOI with Mr. Saurav
Sharma and Mr. Rahul Ranjan,
Advocates.
34
+ W.P.(C) 2241/2022 & CM APPL.6440/2022 (for stay)
SHIVA ASPHALTIC PRODUCTS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 14 of 152
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Ms.Mitika Choudhary, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 23(1) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.
Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava
SPC with Mr. Prajesh Vikram
Srivastava, Advocate for UOI.
Mr.Vikrant N.Goyal, Advocate
with Mr.Shikhar Sardana,
Advocate.
35
+ W.P.(C) 2265/2022 & CM APPL.6519/2022 (for stay)
URBAN PUNJAB ..... Petitioner
Through Ms.Mitika Choudhary, Adv.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CENTRAL CIRCLE-17 & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. SC with
Mr.Zehra Khan, Jr. SC and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Adv.
Mr.Nawal Kishore Jha Adv
SPC with Ms.Kalpana Jha,
Adv. for R-2.
36
+ W.P.(C) 2286/2022 & CM APPL.6573/2022 (for stay)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 15 of 152
MAHENDER KUMAR KASHYAP ..... Petitioner
Through Ms.Mitika Choudhary, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 67(1), & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.
Ms.Saroj Bidawat, Sr. Panel
Counsel for UOI.
37
+ W.P.(C) 2290/2022 & CM APPL.6582/2022 (for stay)
SLG GLOBAL TEX PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Ms.Mitika Choudhary, Adv.
versus
ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE 22 (2), & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv. for
Revenue.
Mr. Prakash Kumar, Central
Govt. Senior Counsel for R-2.
38
+ W.P.(C) 2339/2022
SWIFT REALTECH PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ajay Wadhwa, Mr. Snehil
Jha, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 16 of 152
WARD 22(3) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with
Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC
with Mr. Karan Pandey,
Advocate.
39
+ W.P.(C) 2357/2022 & CM APPL.6789/2022 (for stay) & CM
APPL. 19557/2022 (for stay)
PUNEET GHAI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 59-3, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.
Standing Counsel with
Mr.Shailendra Singh, Jr.
Standing Counsel & Mr.Udit
Sharma, Adv.
40
+ W.P.(C) 2378/2022 & CM APPL.6834/2022 (for stay)
GAUTAM CHAND JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Ms.Mitika Choudhary, Adv.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE
58 (1) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 17 of 152
Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate
for UOI.
41
+ W.P.(C) 2441/2022 & CM APPL.7047/2022 (for stay)
M/S SAGAR POLYCHEM PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Arzoo Raj, Adv.
versus
OFFICE OF THE INCOME
TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Mansie Jain,
Adv.
42
+ W.P.(C) 2442/2022 & CM APPL.7049/2022 (for stay)
M/S SAGAR POLYCHEM
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Arzoo Raj, Adv.
versus
OFFICE OF THE INCOME
TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Mansie Jain,
Adv.
43
+ W.P.(C) 2452/2022 & CM APPL.7066/2022 (for stay)
MR. VIJAY KUMAR GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Arzoo Raj, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 18 of 152
versus
OFFICE OF THE INCOME
TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue.
44
+ W.P.(C) 2516/2022 & CM APPL.7200/2022 (for stay)
GAGAN CHADHA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Nitin Gulati and Mr.
Satyalipsu Ray, Advocates.
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 54(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Mr.Vipul
Agarwal & Mr.Parth Semwal,
Jr. Standing Counsel.
45
+ W.P.(C) 2523/2022
SECOM SERVICES
INDIA PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Akshat Gupta, Adv.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Virender Pratap Singh
Charak, and Ms.Shubhra
Parashar, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 19 of 152
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.
46
+ W.P.(C) 2570/2022 & CM APPL.7345/2022 (for stay)
EVOLVE BRANDS
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Piyush Kaushik, Adv.
versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
47
+ W.P.(C) 2669/2022 & CM No.7649/2022 (for stay)
T S AND SONS HUF ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Gaurav Jain, Ms. Akshita
Goel and Mr. Shubham Gupta,
Advocate.
Mr. P. Roychaudhuri with Mr.
Gagan Gupta, Advocates.
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE
43(1), DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 20 of 152
Jr. Standing Counsel for
Revenue.
48
+ W.P.(C) 2705/2022 & CM APPL.7720/2022 (for stay)
M/S PERFECT POLYCHEM
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arzoo Raj, Adv.
versus
OFFICE OF THE INCOME
TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.
49
+ W.P.(C) 2764/2022 & CM APPL.7927/2022 (for stay)
MS. MANJU KUMARI
PREMSAGAR PRASAD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Arzoo Raj, Adv.
versus
OFFICE OF THE INCOME
TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.
Standing Counsel with
Mr.Shailendra Singh, Jr.
Standing Counsel & Mr.Udit
Sharma, Adv.
50
+ W.P.(C) 2835/2022 & CM APPL.8162/2022 (for stay)
ANKIT JAIN ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 21 of 152
Through Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, ASG for
GNCTD Ms.Ayushi Bansal &
Mr.Sanyam Suri, Advs.
versus
PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX, & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel.
Ms.Archana Gaur, Advocate for
UOI.
51
+ W.P.(C) 2853/2022 & CM APPL.8220/2022 (for stay)
SANJU AGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Gagan Gupta and Mr. P.
Roychaudhuri, Adv.
versus
ITO, WARD 54 (1), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr.SC,
Ms.Easha Kadian, Jr.Standing
Counsel.
52
+ W.P.(C) 2861/2022 & CM APPL.8267/2022 (for stay)
P.K. MARKETING COMPANY ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, ASG for
GNCTD Ms.Ayushi Bansal &
Mr.Sanyam Suri, Advs.
versus
PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 22 of 152
Through Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.SC.
with Mr. Shaliendra Singh and
Mr. Udit Sharma, Advocates.
Ms.Manisha Agrawal Narain,
CGSC with Mr. Aditya Singh
Deshwal Advocate for UOI.
53
+ W.P.(C) 2956/2022 & CM APPL.8579/2022 (for stay)
SAGARI LEATHERS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sandeep Chilana, and
Ms.Shambhavi Sinha,
Mr.Priyojeet Chatterjee,
Mr.Shekhar Sharma and
Mr.Abdullah Tanveer,
Advocates.
versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.
54
+ W.P.(C) 3038/2022 & CM APPL.8822/2022 (for stay)
M/S SANT SANDESH MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION
PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Rishab Singla & Mr. Pawan
Shree Agrawal, Advs.
Mr. V.P. Gupta and Mr.
Anunav Kumar, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 23 of 152
WARD 22(3) DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate
55
+ W.P.(C) 3070/2022 & CM APPL.8881/2022 (for stay)
CONCEPT INFRADEVELOPERS
PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Rajeev Sharma &
Mr.Aditya Sharma with Mr.
Shubham Bhardwaj, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, OFFICE
OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -6 (1),
DELHI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,
Jr. Standing Counsel.
56
+ W.P.(C) 3074/2022 & CM APPL.8887/2022 (for stay)
ABHISHEK AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. P. Roychaudhuri with Mr.
Gagan Gupta, Advocates.
versus
ITO WARD 54 (1), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,
Jr. Standing Counsel.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 24 of 152
57
+ W.P.(C) 3080/2022 & CM APPL.8923/2022 (for stay)
DEEPAK AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. P. Roychaudhuri with Mr.
Gagan Gupta, Advocates.
versus
ITO WARD 54(1), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
58
+ W.P.(C) 3081/2022 & CM APPL.8927/2022 (for stay)
DEEPAK AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. P. Roychaudhuri with
Mr.Gagan Gupta, Advocates.
versus
ITO WARD 54 1, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
59
+ W.P.(C) 3290/2022 & CM APPL.9559/2022 (for stay)
RAJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sourav Vig & Mr.Tushar
Gupta, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
CIRCLE 58 (1) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 25 of 152
Through Mr.Abhishek Maratha, Sr.
Standing Counsel.
Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh,
Adv. for R-2 & R-3.
60
+ W.P.(C) 3291/2022 & CM APPL.9561/2022 (for stay)
ALOK KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sourav Vig & Mr.Tushar
Gupta, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
CIRCLE 58 (1) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.
Standing Counsel with
Mr.Shailendra Singh, Jr.
Standing Counsel & Mr.Udit
Sharma, Adv.
Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh,
Adv. for R-2 & R-3.
61
+ W.P.(C) 3438/2022 & CM APPL.10035/2022
STRATAGEM PORTFOLIO
(P) LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Gautam Jain & Mr.Piyush
Kumar Kamal, Advs.
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
22(2) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 26 of 152
Through Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Mansie Jain,
Adv.
62
+ W.P.(C) 3503/2022 & CM APPL. 10328/2022
BHOLENATH FOODS LIMITED ......Petitioner
Through Mr Rishabh Jain, Adv.
versus
DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(2)
NEW DELHI ......Respondent
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
63
+ W.P.(C) 3525/2022
UMESH KUMAR GUPTA AS LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASED
SAROJ BALA GUPTA ......Petitioner
Through Mr. Sushil K Tekriwal and
Dr.Mamta Tekriwal, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER ......Respondent
Through Mr Ajit Sharma, Sr Standing
Counsel.
64
+ W.P.(C) 3595/2022
UMESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 27 of 152
Through Mr. Sushil K. Tekriwal,
Advocate with Dr. Mamta
Tekriwal, Advocate.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.
65
+ W.P.(C) 3628/2022 & CM APPL. 10749/2022
SANDEEP JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Arnav Kumar, Mr. Rajat
Mittal, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
22 (2), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Sr.
SC with Mr. Tushar Gupta,
Jr.SC, Mr.Utkarsh Tiwari,
Advs.
66
+ W.P.(C) 3630/2022 & CM APPL. 10759/2022
SANDEEP JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Arnav Kumar, Mr. Rajat
Mittal, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX CIRCLE 22 2 DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 28 of 152
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate
67
+ W.P.(C) 3692/2022 & CM APPL.10960/2022
MANSI AGGARWAL ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Abhishek Garg, Advocate
with Mr. Aayush Kuchhal, Mr.
Yash Gaiha, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 62(1) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar & Ms. Easha
Kadian, Advocates.
68
+ W.P.(C) 3699/2022 & CM APPL.10974/2022
RAKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. P. Roychaudhuri with Mr.
Gagan Gupta, Advocates.
versus
ACIT, CIRCLE - 59(1),
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate
69
+ W.P.(C) 3708/2022 & CM APPL.11015/2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 29 of 152
PARAG GUPTA (SINCE DECEASED),
THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
- SH. PREM CHAND GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Abhishek Garg, Advocate
with Mr. Aayush Kuchhal, Mr.
Yash Gaiha, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 62(1) & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
70
+ W.P.(C) 3758/2022 & CM APPL.11187/2022
SHIV KUMAR GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. T.M. Shivakumar, Adv.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX CIRCLE 22(2),
DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv for
Revenue.
71
+ W.P.(C) 3774/2022 & CM APPL.11216/2022 (for interim
relief)
PREM CHAND GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Abhishek Garg, Mr.
Aayush Kuchhal and Mr. Yash
Gaiha, Advs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 30 of 152
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX CIRCLE 58(1), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue.
72
+ W.P.(C) 3780/2022 & CM APPL.11228/2022
SHIV KUMAR GOEL .... Petitioner
Through Mr. T.M. Shivakumar, Adv.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX CIRCLE 22(2),
DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv for
Revenue.
73
+ W.P.(C) 3804/2022 & CM APPL.11281/2022
SHANTI LAL PORWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Nitin Gulati, Ms Reena
Gulati, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF
INCOME TAX CIRCLE 59(1),
DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SC
with Mr. Shailendra Singh, Jr.
SC and Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 31 of 152
74
+ W.P.(C) 3808/2022 & CM APPL.11288/2022
SHIV KUMAR GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. T.M. Shivakumar, Adv.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX CIRCLE 22(2),
DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv for
Revenue.
75
+ W.P.(C) 3817/2022 & CM APPL.11311/2022
INDRA PORWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Nitin Gulati, Ms Reena
Gulati, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF
INCOME TAX CIRCLE 59(1),
DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SC
with Mr. Shailendra Singh, Jr.
SC and Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.
76
+ W.P.(C) 3831/2022 & CM APPL.11371/2022
DAVINDER BAJAJ ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 32 of 152
INCOME TAX CIRCLE 67-1,
DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with
Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC.
Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv. for
UOI.
77
+ W.P.(C) 3876/2022 & CM APPL.11537/2022
DEEPAK CHOUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Nitin Gulati, Ms Reena
Gulati, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME
TAX CIRCLE 60(1),
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.
Standing Counsel with Mr.
Shailendra Singh, Mr. Udit
Sharma, Advocates.
78
+ W.P.(C) 3942/2022 with CM APPL. 11747/2022
UMA GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. T.M. Shivakumar, Adv.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv for
Revenue.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 33 of 152
79
+ W.P.(C) 3951/2022 with CM APPL. 11773/2022
UMA GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. T.M. Shivakumar, Adv.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX CIRCLE 22(2),
DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv for
Revenue.
80
+ W.P.(C) 4020/2022 & C.M.APPL.12027/2022
SAHIL HOME LOOMTEX
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sunil Kumar Mukhi,
Advocate.
versus
ITO, WARD-22(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with
Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC
with Mr. Karan Pandey,
Advocate.
81
+ W.P.(C) 4045/2022
ANIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha,
Advocate.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 34 of 152
INCOME TAX OFFICER
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.
82
+ W.P.(C) 4174/2022
MEGHA JAIN .....Petitioner
Through Mr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha,
Advocate.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.
83
+ W.P.(C) 4177/2022, C.M.APPLs.12521-22/2022
SHYAMPREM ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPIL
FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.) ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Nitin Gulati, Ms Reena
Gulati, Advs.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with
Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC
with Mr. Karan Pandey,
Advocate.
Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv. for
UOI.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 35 of 152
84
+ W.P.(C) 4187/2022 & CM APPL. 12540/2022
SHANKER LAL SINGHANIA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Kapil Goel with
Mr.Sandeep Goel, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX CIRCLE 59 (1)
DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate
85
+ W.P.(C) 4260/2022 & CM APPL. 12668/2022
VEEKAY GENERAL INDUSTRIES ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.
versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX -20,
NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue.
86
+ W.P.(C) 4266/2022
N M INDUSTRIES LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 36 of 152
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5,
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv for
Revenue.
87
+ W.P.(C) 4408/2022 & CM APPLs.13142-43/2022
BRIJ BHUSHAN GUPTA ...... Petitioner
Through Mr. Brij Bhushan Gupta, Mr.
Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sahil Kumar,
Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE
59-1, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.
Standing Counsel with Mr.
Shailendera Singh and Mr. Udit
Sharma, Advs.
88
+ W.P.(C) 4459/2022 & CM APPLs.13299-13300/2022
BRIJ BHUSHAN GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Brij Bhushan Gupta, Mr.
Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sahil Kumar,
Advocates.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 37 of 152
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE
59-1, DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.
Standing Counsel with Mr.
Shailendera Singh and Mr. Udit
Sharma, Advs.
89
+ W.P.(C) 4507/2022 & CM APPLs.13487-88/2022
PAWAN CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Venketesh Mohan
Chaurasia, Advocates.
versus
ITO, WARD 35(5), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms.
Easha Kadian, Advocates.
90
+ W.P.(C) 4567/2022 & C.M.Nos.13706-13707/2022
BHUSHAN LAL PANDITA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Jaspal Singh Sethi with
Mr.Gaurav Gupta, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 67(1) NEW DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.
91
+ W.P.(C) 4584/2022 & C.M.Nos.13747/2022, 13824/2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 38 of 152
LALA SHER SINGH MEMORIAL JEEVAN VIGYAN
TRUST SOCIETY ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Mudit Bansal and Mr.
Ramesh Kumar Jain,
Advocates.
versus
THE DCIT CIRCLE
EXEMPT 1 (1) DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue.
92
+ W.P.(C) 4692/2022 & C.M.Nos.14047-14048/2022
LOTUS HERBALS PVT LTD .... Petitioner
Through Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav
Kulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.
Anant Mann, Mr. Himanshu
Aggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,
Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with
Mr. Mr.Vipul Agrawal and
Mr.Parth Semwal, Junior
Standing Counsel for the
Revenue.
93
+ W.P.(C) 4695/2022, CM APPL. 14053/2022, CM APPL.
14263/2022
BRIJ BHUSHAN GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 39 of 152
Through Mr. Brij Bhushan Gupta, Mr.
Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sahil Kumar,
Advocates.
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE 59-1, DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue
with Mr.Shailendra Singh, Jr
Standing Counsel & Mr.Udit
Sharma, Adv. for respondent
No.1.
94
+ W.P.(C) 4697/2022, CM APPL. 14061/2022
MOHIT BAJAJ ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Kushank Sindhu, Ms.
Gazal Ghai, Mr. Anmol Singh,
Mr, Baibhav and Mr. Aditya
Sain, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Mohit Sharma, Sr. Panel
counsel for UOI.
Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue.
95
+ W.P.(C) 4777/2022, C.M.APPL.14308/2022
VINAY KUMAR DHINGRA ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 40 of 152
Through Mr.Mudit Bansal and Mr.
Ramesh Kumar Jain,
Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 63 (1),
DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Easha
Kadian, Advocates.
96
+ W.P.(C) 4791/2022, C.M.APPL.14335/2022
AJANTA POLYMERS
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Gaurav Jain, Ms. Akshita
Goel and Mr. Shubham Gupta,
Advocate.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)
DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with
Mr. Mr.Vipul Agrawal and
Mr.Parth Semwal, Junior
Standing Counsel for the
Revenue.
97
+ W.P.(C) 4798/2022
ASHISH JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha,
Advocate.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 41 of 152
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.
98
+ W.P.(C) 4801/2022
RAJIV GUPTA HUF .....Petitioner
Through Mr.Ajay Wadhwa, Mr. Snehil
Jha, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 54 1 & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate.
99
+ W.P.(C) 4808/2022, C.M.APPL.14372/2022
MR. NEERAJ AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate.
versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.
Standing Counsel with
Mr.Shailendra Singh, &
Mr.Udit Sharma, Advs.
100
+ W.P.(C) 4818/2022, C.M.APPLs.14395-96/2022
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA HUF ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 42 of 152
Through Mr.Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE - 43-1 & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Puneet Rai with Ms.Adeeba
Mujahid and Mr. Karan Pandey,
Advocates.
101
+ W.P.(C) 4811/2022, C.M.APPL.14380/2022
M/S. CIGMA EVENTS P LTD .....Petitioner
Through Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate.
Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate
for UOI.
102
+ W.P.(C) 4879/2022, C.M.APPL.14616/2022
BC EXPORTS .....Petitioner
Through Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Mr.Somil
Agarwal & Mr.Anshul Mittal,
Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX CIRCLE 58(1),
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 43 of 152
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra,
Advocate with Mr. Shailendra
Singh and Mr. Udit Sharma,
Advocates.
103
+ W.P.(C) 4892/2022, C.M.APPL.14640/2022
NITIN SAXENA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE 49-1 & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue.
104
+ W.P.(C) 4919/2022, CM APPLs. 14682/2022, 17829/2022,
26875/2022 & 28266/2022
CLASSIC FINCAP PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Divyanshu
Agarwal, Advocate.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 44 of 152
105
+ W.P.(C) 4924/2022 & C.M.APPL.14688/2022
JAGMOHAN GARG (ERSTWHILE
DIRECTOR OF COMPETENT REAL
ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.) ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Vijay K Singh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate
for UOI.
Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with
Mr. Mr.Vipul Agrawal and
Mr.Parth Sewwal, Junior
Standing Counsel for the
Revenue.
106
+ W.P.(C) 4946/2022, C.M.APPL.14724/2022
KARNIK RAJAT ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav
Kulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.
Anant Mann, Mr. Himanshu
Aggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,
Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.
107
+ W.P.(C) 4956/2022, C.M.APPL.14735/2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 45 of 152
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA HUF ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 43-1 & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with
Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC
with Mr. Karan Pandey,
Advocate.
108
+ W.P.(C) 5018/2022 & C.M.APPL.14953/2022
BALDEV KRISHNA SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Smriti Sahay, Mr. Alok
Kumar and Mr. M. Goswami,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Krishan Kumar Sharma, Sr.
Panel Counsel for R-1/UOI.
Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate
for Revenue.
109
+ W.P.(C) 5024/2022,C.M.APPL.14974/2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 46 of 152
UMA SHANKER ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate
versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX -20
NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.
110
+ W.P.(C) 5027/2022, C.M.APPL.14976/2022
RENU MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 58(1)
DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue
with Mr.Shailendra Singh, Jr
Standing Counsel & Mr.Udit
Sharma, Adv.
111
+ W.P.(C) 5064/2022, C.M.APPL.15046/2022
NITIN SAXENA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 47 of 152
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 49-1 & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue.
112
+ W.P.(C) 5119/2022 & CM APPL.15178/2022
SUN PARKS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Saurabh Dev Karan Singh
and Ms. Kanika Jain,
Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (22) 2, DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with
Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC
with Mr. Karan Pandey,
Advocate.
113
+ W.P.(C) 5138/2022 & CM APPL.15285/2022
SANDEEP SETHI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija,
Advocate.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX
CIRCLE 28(1), DELHI AND ANR. .... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.
114
+ W.P.(C) 5143/2022, CM APPL. 15293/2022
SMT. NAVNEET KAUR KOCHHAR ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 48 of 152
Through Mr.Rajeev Sharma &
Mr.Aditya Sharma with Mr.
Shubham Bhardwaj, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54(1)
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with
Mr. Mr.Vipul Agrawal and
Mr.Parth Semwal, Junior
Standing Counsel for the
Revenue.
115
+ W.P.(C) 5145/2022, CM APPL. 15297/2022, CM
APPL.17326-27/2022
APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Manu K. Giri, Advocate.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
1 -1 DELHI AND ORS .....
Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
116
+ W.P.(C) 5155/2022 & CM APPL. 15321/2022, CM
APPL.15322/2022
SRKK ASSOCIATES
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 49 of 152
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra and Mr. Animesh
Tripathi, Advocates.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 22-
2, DELHI & ORS. ....
Respondents
Through Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with
Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC
with Mr. Karan Pandey,
Advocate.
Mr.N.K.Aggarwal, Advocate
for UOI.
117
+ W.P.(C) 5157/2022, CM APPL. 15324/2022
DEEPAK GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sharad Agarwal and
Ms.Monika Ghai, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 59 (8),
DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra,
Advocate.
118
+ W.P.(C) 5170/2022, CM APPL. 15348/2022
MANISH KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Manuj Sabharwal,
Advocates.
versus
INCOME-TAX OFFICER,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 50 of 152
WARD 63(1) & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,
Jr. Standing Counsel for
Revenue.
119
+ W.P.(C) 5178/2022, CM APPL. 15360/2022
NAVNEET KAUR KOCHHAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Rajeev Sharma &
Mr.Aditya Sharma with Mr.
Shubham Bhardwaj, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54(1)
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with
Mr. Mr.Vipul Agrawal and
Mr.Parth Semwal, Junior
Standing Counsel for the
Revenue.
120
+ W.P.(C) 5179/2022 & CM APPL.15365/2022
M/S CARISSA INVESTMENT
PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Bhavnesh Saini, Mr. Neeraj
Saini and Mr. Karan Chawla,
Advocates.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 51 of 152
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE 4(2) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,
Jr. Standing Counsel for
Revenue.
121
+ W.P.(C) 5191/2022 & CM APPL.15412-13/2022
MD OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL
CIRCLE 14, DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,
Jr. Standing Counsel for
Revenue.
Mr. Ruchir Mishra and Mr.
Mukesh Kr. Tiwari, Advocates
for UOI.
122
+ W.P.(C) 5209/2022, CM APPL. 15459/2022
SATISH BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 52 of 152
INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16-1,
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha,
Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Om Prakash with
Mr. Ghanshaym Singh, Mr.
Mr.Devvrat Yadav, Advocates
for respondent No.4.
123
+ W.P.(C) 5233/2022, CM APPL. 15640/2022
M/S. SHRI NIWAS PULSES (P) LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sanjay Kumar and
Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocates.
124
+ W.P.(C) 5246/2022, CM APPL. 15670/2022 and 19038/2022
RAM KALI ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Divya and Mr.Ruchesh
Sinha, Advocates.
versus
ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
43(1), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate
for Revenue.
125
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 53 of 152
+ W.P.(C) 5247/2022, CM APPL. 15675/2022 & 19025/2022
RENU MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Divya and Mr.Ruchesh
Sinha, Advocates.
Versus
ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
43(1), DELHI & ANR. .....
Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate
for Revenue.
126
+ W.P.(C) 5262/2022, CM APPL. 15716/2022 , 17894-95/2022
STRATEGIC DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Gautam Jain and Mr.Piysuh
Kumar Kamal, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE
22(2) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate
for Revenue.
127
+ W.P.(C) 5265/2022, CM APPL. 15724/2022
SHRI. ANOOP KUMAR
CHHAWCHHARIA ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 54 of 152
Through Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate.
versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX CIRCLE -58 (1),
DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhtora,
Advocate.
128
+ W.P.(C) 5273/2022, CM APPL. 15742/2022
RAMESH CHANDER KALRA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27,
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue.
Mr. Gigi. C. George Advocate
for R-4/UOI
129
+ W.P.(C) 5277/2022, CM APPL. 15749/2022
POPULATION SERVICES
INTERNATIONAL ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav
Kulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.
Anant Mann, Mr. Himanshu
Aggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,
Advocates.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 55 of 152
Mr. Aditya Vohra and Mr.
Abhishek Singhvi, Advocates.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhtora,
Advocate.
130
+ W.P.(C) 5281/2022, CM APPL. 15756/2022
AJAY JAIN .....Petitioner
Through Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-59-1,
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Mr. L. S.
Hasan, Advocates.
Mr. Ayush Kaushik, Advocates
for UOI.
131
+ W.P.(C) 5289/2022, CM APPL. 15773/2022
NISHA GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Kanishk Agarwal,
Ms.Nidhi Bhuwania and Ms.
Dhriti Gupta, Advocates.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 56 of 152
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 54(1), DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate.
132
+ W.P.(C) 5297/2022, CM APPL. 15800/2022, 17858/2022
KUBER PLANTERS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ekashara Mahajan and Mr.
Adiraj Bali, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue.
133
+ W.P.(C) 5299/2022, CM APPL. 15801/2022
VISHWANATH GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 60(5),
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Mr. L. S.
Hasan, Advocates
Mr. Ved Prakash Tripathi,
Advocate for respondent No.5.
134
+ W.P.(C) 5300/2022, CM APPL. 15805/2022 & CM APPL.
19134/2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 57 of 152
NARESH KUMAR (HUF) ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Divya and Mr.Ruchesh
Sinha, Advocates.
versus
ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX CIRCLE 43(1),
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with
Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC
with Mr. Karan Pandey,
Advocate.
135
+ W.P.(C) 5308/2022, CM APPL. 15821/2022
MS.PRITIE THAPAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Advocate.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajit Sharma, Mr. L. S.
Hasan, Advocates.
136
+ W.P.(C) 5316/2022 and CM APPL. Nos. 15843/2022,
17827/2022
KUBER PLANTERS LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Ekashara Mahajan, Mr.
Adiraj Bali, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 58 of 152
OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra,
Advocate.
137
+ W.P.(C) 5319/2022, CM APPL. 15836/2022
POPULATION SERVICES
INTERNATIONAL ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav
Kulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.
Anant Mann, Mr. Himanshu
Aggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,
Advocates.
Mr. Aditya Vohra and Mr.
Abhishek Singhvi, Advocates.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra,
Advocate.
138
+ W.P.(C) 5407/2022, C.M.APPL.16182-83/2022
ANIL KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav
Kulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.
Anant Mann, Mr. Himanshu
Aggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,
Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54(1) DELHI AND ANR.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 59 of 152
..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
139
+ W.P.(C) 5408/2022 & C.M.APPL.16184-85/2022
CADENCE REAL ESTATES
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav
Kulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.
Anant Mann, Mr. Himanshu
Aggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,
Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with
Mr. Mr.Vipul Agrawal and
Mr.Parth Semwal, Junior
Standing Counsel for the
Revenue.
140
+ W.P.(C) 6401/2022 and CM APPL. 19382/2022
ANKIT GAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Risabh Nangia, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 60(5) NEW DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv.
141
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 60 of 152
+ W.P.(C) 13764/2021
ATHEROL BUILDERS AND
DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav
Kulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.
Anant Mann, Mr. Himanshu
Aggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,
Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with
Mr. Mr.Vipul Agrawal and
Mr.Parth Semwal, Junior
Standing Counsel for the
Revenue.
142
+ W.P.(C) 7944/2022 & CM APPL.24194/2022
BIRD WORLDWIDE FLIGHT
SERVICES INDIA PVT LIMTED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mayank Nagi and Mr.
Pulkit, Advocates.
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE 4(2) DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue
with Mr.Shailendra Singh, Jr
Standing Counsel & Mr.Udit
Sharma, Adv. for respondent No.1.
143
+ W.P.(C) 7900/2021 & CM APPL.24560/2021
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 61 of 152
REKHA GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ishan Garg, Advocate
versus
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue
with Mr.Shailendra Singh, Jr
Standing Counsel & Mr.Udit
Sharma, Adv. for respondent
No.1.
144
+ W.P.(C) 8994/2021
SHARAD GARG ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Venketesh Mohan
Chaurasia, Advocates.
versus
ITO, WARD 63(1), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with
Mr. Mr.Vipul Agrawal and
Mr.Parth Semwal, Junior
Standing Counsel for the
Revenue.
145
+ W.P.(C) 9427/2021
UJJWAL ARORA ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 62 of 152
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 59-1 DELHI ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue
with Mr.Shailendra Singh, Jr
Standing Counsel & Mr.Udit
Sharma, Adv. for respondent
No.1.
146
+ W.P.(C) 9659/2021
PANKAJ VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 69-1 & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate
for Revenue.
Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Sr.
Panel Counsel with Mr.Kautilya
Birat, Mr. Pratyashish Mohanty,
Advocates, for R-4.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 63 of 152
147
+ W.P.(C) 11010/2021 & CM 33944/2021
ATS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Harshit Batra, Mr.Ritesh
Bajaj, Advs.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX & ORS. .....Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
148
+ W.P.(C) 12926/2021& CMs 40710-11/2021
SHIV KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 58-7 & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. SC.
149
+ W.P.(C) 13021/2021 & CMs 41064-65/2021
AVNI NATH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sunil Kumar Mukhi,
Advocate.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 64 of 152
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54(1),
NEW DELHI ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
150
+ W.P.(C) 13384/2021 & CM APPLs.42168-169/2021
ABHISHEK ARORA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, WARD 59-1,
DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing
counsel.
151
+ W.P.(C) 13746/2021 & CM APPL.43420/2021
ALANA BUILDERS AND
DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav
Kulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.
Anant Mann, Mr. Himanshu
Aggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,
Advocates.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 65 of 152
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
152
+ W.P.(C) 13757/2021 & CM APPL.43442/2021
ATHEROL BUILDERS AND
DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav
Kulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.
Anant Mann, Mr. Himanshu
Aggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,
Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC with
Mr. Mr.Vipul Agrawal and
Mr.Parth Semwal, Junior
Standing Counsel for the
Revenue.
153
+ W.P.(C) 13760/2021 & CM APPL.43449/2021
SHIKHI ESTATES
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav
Kulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.
Anant Mann, Mr. Himanshu
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 66 of 152
Aggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,
Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX
OFFICER & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv for
Revenue.
154
+ W.P.(C) 13814/2021& CM APPL. 43599/2021
RSND PROJECTS
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. T.M. Shivakumar, Adv.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3)
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr.
Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar
Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel and
Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate
for Revenue.
155
+ W.P.(C) 13825/2021 & CM APPL. 43626/2021
SHIKHI ESTATES
PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav
Kulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.
Anant Mann, Mr. Himanshu
Aggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,
Advocates.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 67 of 152
versus
INCOME TAX
OFFICER & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv for
Revenue.
156
+ W.P.(C) 13888/2021 & CM APPL. 43850/2021
NIDHI GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sandeep Chilana, and
Ms.Shambhavi Sinha,
Mr.Priyojeet Chatterjee,
Mr.Shekhar Sharma and
Mr.Abdullah Tanveer,
Advocates.
versus
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
157
+ W.P.(C) 13901/2021 & CM APPL. 43877/2021
MINAKSHI AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Piyush Kumar Kamal and
Ms. Monika Aggarwal,
Advocates.
Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 68 of 152
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 60-4 & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SC
with Mr.Shaliender Singh, Jr.
SC, Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.
158
+ W.P.(C) 13907/2021 & CM APPL. 43889/2021
SHIV KUMAR GUPTA –HUF ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 58-7 & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel for Revenue.
159
+ W.P.(C) 14049/2021 & CM APPL. 44358/2021
DEVI DASS HUF ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 69 of 152
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 59-8 & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel for Revenue.
160
+ W.P.(C) 14053/2021 & CM APPL. 44366/2021
MUKESH ARORA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
CIRCLE 59-1 & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SC
with Mr.Shaliender Singh, Jr.
SC, Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.
161
+ W.P.(C) 14100/2021 & CM APPL.44486/2021
MUKESH ARORA –HUF ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat
Kapoor, Mr. Sumit
Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,
Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 70 of 152
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 59-8 & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SC
with Mr.Shaliender Singh, Jr.
SC, Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.
162
+ W.P.(C) 14229/2021 & CM APPL.44883/2021
SANJIV MAHESHWARI .....Petitioner
Through Mr.Ashish Middha, Adv.
versus
PR. COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,
Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.
Shray Nargotra, Advocate.
163
+ W.P.(C) 14266/2021 & CM APPL.44953/2021
REENA SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Divya and Mr.Ruchesh
Sinha, Advs.
versus
ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 71 of 152
OF INCOME TAX & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with
Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC
with Mr. Karan Pandey,
Advocate.
Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv. for
UOI.
Mr.Rishabh Sahu, Central Govt.
Sr. Counsel for R-3.
164
+ W.P.(C) 14337/2021
SUHARSH ARORA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. Richa
Mishra, Advocates.
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 48-1 & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue.
Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
165
+ W.P.(C) 14533/2021 & CM APPL.45713/2021
RAVI KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Aditya Dewan, Mr. Sahil
Chandra, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with
Ms.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC
with Mr. Karan Pandey,
Advocate.
166
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 72 of 152
+ W.P.(C) 14610/2021 & CM APPL.46026/2021
SANGITA GARG ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Advocate
with Mr. Anubhav Gupta and
Mr. Vikas Poonia, Advocates.
versus
OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 59(3), DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel for Revenue.
Mr.Narendra Kumar Srivastava,
Advocate for R-4.
167
+ W.P.(C) 14711/2021 & CM APPL.46325/2021
SUSHMA GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Advocate
with Mr. Anubhav Gupta and
Mr. Vikas Poonia, Advocates.
Versus
OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 59(6), DELHI
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SC
with Mr.Shaliender Singh, Jr.
SC, Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv. for
Revenue.
Mr. Avnish Singh, SCGC for
UOI with Mr. Saurav Sharma
and Mr. Rahul Ranjan,
Advocates.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 73 of 152
168
+ W.P.(C) 14712/2021 & CM APPL.46327/2021 (for interim
relief)
UPENDRA GULATI ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Advocate
with Mr. Anubhav Gupta and
Mr. Vikas Poonia, Advocates.
versus
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 28(1),
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standing
Counsel for Revenue.
169
+ W.P.(C) 15074/2021 & CM APPL.47528/2021
SANJAY KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Sagar Rohatgi, Advocate.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Revenue.
170
+ W.P.(C) 15090/2021 & CM APPL.47574/2021 (for stay)
POOJASMIT INVESTMENTS AND TRADING PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 74 of 152
Through Mr. Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya
Kapoor, Mr. S.K. Gambhir and
Mr. C.S. Anand, Advocates.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD 20-1 DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC with
Ms.Mansie Jain, Adv for
Revenue.
171
+ W.P.(C) 2814/2022 & CM APPL. 8121/2022
ASHOKA BUILDERS
PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, ASG for
GNCTD Ms.Ayushi Bansal &
Mr.Sanyam Suri, Mr. Vikrant
Chawla, Advs.
versus
PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX, & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Standing
Counsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,
Jr. Standing Counsel for
Revenue.
Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Sr.
Panel counsel with Mr. Rahul
Mourya for R-2.
th
Reserved on: 15 July, 2022
th
% Date of Decision: 27 September,2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 75 of 152
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
J U D G M E N T
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:
CM APPL. 13602/2022 in W.P. (C) No. 10/2022 (Condonation of
delay)
CM APPL. 13601/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 496/2022 (Condonation of
delay)
CM APPL. 13914/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 2006/2022 (Condonation of
delay)
CM APPL. 13913/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 2137/2022 (Condonation of
delay)
For the reasons, stated in these applications, the delay in filing
the counter-affidavits is condoned and the counter-affidavits filed by
Revenue in these writ petitions are taken on record.
Accordingly, these applications stand disposed of.
CM APPL. 12521/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 4177/2022 (for exemption)
CM APPL. 13143/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 4408/2022 (for exemption)
CM APPL. 13300/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 4459/2022 (for exemption)
CM APPL. 14048/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 4692/2022 (for exemption)
CM APPL. 14263/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 4695/2022 (for exemption)
CM APPL. 14396/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 4818/2022 (for exemption)
CM APPL. 17327/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 5145/2022 (for exemption)
CM APPL. 15322/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 5155/2022 (for exemption)
CM APPL. 15413/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 5191/2022 (for exemption)
CM APPL. 16183/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 5407/2022 (for exemption)
CM APPL. 16185/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 5408/2022 (for exemption)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 76 of 152
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, these applications stand disposed of.
WRIT PETITIONS.
1. By way of the present batch of petitions, this Court has been
called upon to decide the validity of the Notices issued under Section
148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ‘ Act of 1961’), as it stood prior to
st
its amendment on 01 April, 2021, by the Finance Act, 2021.
Brief Facts
1.1. The Sections 147, 148, 149 and 151 of the Act of 1961 were
st
amended vide the Finance Act of 2021, with effect from 1 April,
2021.
1.2. As per the unamended Section 149(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, the
reassessment proceedings could be initiated within 4 years from the
end of the relevant Assessment Years (‘AYs’).
1.3. As per the unamended Section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961, the
reassessment proceedings could be initiated within 6 years from the
end of the relevant AY if the income chargeable to tax that has
escaped assessment amounts to one lakh rupees or more for that year.
1.4. As per the unamended Section 149(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the
reassessment proceedings could be initiated within 16 years from the
end of the relevant AY if income in relation to any foreign asset
chargeable to taxess escaped assessment.
1.5. However, with effect from 1st April, 2021, under the amended
Section 149(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, reassessment could be initiated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 77 of 152
within 3 years from the end of the relevant AY. Thus, under amended
Section 149(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, as on 1st April, 2021,
reassessment could only be reopened up to AY 2018-19 and all prior
assessment years were barred.
st
1.6. For initiation of reassessment proceedings on 1 April, 2021,
for any AY prior to AY 2018-19, the pre-conditions contained in the
amended Section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961 were required to be
fulfilled by the Income Tax Department (‘Department’).
1.7. Further, before issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the
st
Act of 1961 after 1 April, 2021, the Department had to comply with
the mandatory procedure prescribed under the newly inserted Section
148A of the Act of 1961.
1.8. Since there was a regime change with respect to law of
st
limitation coming into effect from 1 April, 2021, which curtailed the
time limit for re-opening of assessment from 6 years to 3 years, the
Department with a view to avail the limitation prescribed under the
unamended Section 149 of the Act of 1961, generated reassessment
Notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 for AYs 2013-14, 2014-
15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, all dated 31st March, 2021
(‘Notices’).
1.9. The impugned Notices were generated and sent for despatch
through electronic mail (‘e-mail’) by the Jurisdictional Assessing
Officer (‘JAO’) using the Income Tax Business Application (‘ITBA’)
software developed by the Tata Consultancy Services (‘TCS’) for the
Department.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 78 of 152
1.10. The facts on record evidence that though the impugned Notices
st
were generated by JAO using the ITBA software on 31 March, 2021,
the same were despatched through the ITBA’s e-mail system, using
st
the ITBA servers on or after 1 April, 2021; and/or despatched by
JAO through normal post on or after 1st April, 2021.
1.11. In view of the admitted fact as regards the date of despatch
st
being 1 April, 2021, or thereafter, the Department has sought to
contend that for the purpose of determining the date on which the
impugned Notices have been ‘issued’ within the meaning of Section
149 of the Act of 1961, the date of despatch by ITBA software system
through e-mail or speed post is not relevant and it is only the date of
generation of the impugned Notices on the ITBA portal, which must
be considered.
1.12. The petitioners have agreed that the date of receipt of the
impugned Notice by the assessee is not the criterion for determining
whether the impugned Notices have been ‘issued’ within the time limit
prescribed under Section 149 of the Act of 1961.
Categories identified
1.13. The impugned Notices as categorized by the Counsel for the
petitioners, Ms. Kavita Jha and recorded by this Court vide its order
th
dated 24 March, 2022, are reproduced hereinunder:
“…
1. Category A : is in respect of writ petitions where Notice is
st
dated 31 March, 2021 or before but digitally signed on or after
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 79 of 152
st st
1 April, 2021, however sent and received on or after 1 April,
2021.
2. Category B : is in respect of writ petitions where Notice is
st
dated 31 March, 2021 or before, digitally not signed, however
st
sent and received on or after 1 April, 2021.
3. Category C : is in respect of writ petitions where Notice is
st
dated 31 March, 2021 or before, digitally signed on or before
st st
31 March, 2021, however sent and received on or after 1
April, 2021.
4. Category D : is in respect of writ petitions where Notice is
st
dated 31 March, 2021 or before, digitally signed on or before
st
31 March, 2021, no service either by e-mail or by post or any
other mode and assessee came to know later on through Portal
or receipt of subsequent notice under Section 142(1).
5. Category E : is in respect of writ petitions where Notice is
st
dated 31 March, 2021 or before, manually signed, no service
st
by e-mail but despatched through speed post on or after 1
April, 2021.
…”
1.14. Since the deadline for passing the assessment orders in most of
st
these cases was 31 March, 2022, the proceedings pursuant to the
impugned reassessment Notices were stayed till further orders by this
th
Court vide the aforesaid order dated 24 March 2022.
2. Therefore, the controversy which has arisen for consideration is
st
whether these impugned Notices were issued on or before 31 March,
2021 or thereafter. If this Court holds that the impugned Notices were
validly issued under the unamended Section 149 of the Act of 1961 on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 80 of 152
st
or before 31 March 2021, then, the re-assessment proceedings would
be governed by the unamended provisions of Section 147, 148, 149
st
and 151 of the Act of 1961 as they stood before 1 April, 2021.
However, if this Court concludes that the impugned Notices were
st
issued on or after 01 April, 2021, then, the new regime of Section
147, 148, 148A, 149 and 151 of the Act of 1961, shall govern these re-
assessment proceedings and the decision of the Supreme Court in
Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543, would
apply. In that case, the impugned Notices though issued under Section
148 of the unamended Act of 1961, would be considered to be issued
under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961, as amended by the Finance
Act, 2021.
3. There is no dispute that since the impugned Notices pertain to
A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, they were
st
getting time barred on 31 March, 2021, as per the newly amended
Section 149(a) of the Act of 1961 and were therefore, as per law
st
required to be ‘ issued’ on or before 31 March, 2021.
4. It is an admitted fact in all these petitions that though the
st
impugned Notices were generated on the ITBA portal on 31 March,
st
2021, however, the same have been despatched only on or after 01
April 2021; and therefore the issue arising for determination before
this Court is whether the impugned Notices will be governed by the
st
re-assessment regime which came into effect on 01 April, 2021, or
st
the re-assessment regime which was in existence as on 31 March,
2021.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 81 of 152
th
Submissions of the Department vide Compliance Affidavit dated 30
May, 2022
5. In accordance with the directions of this Court, on behalf of the
Department, Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan, the Assessing Officer and Mr.
Saurav Sharma, Joint Commissioner of the ITBA were present in
Court on 23rd May, 2022, to clarify the circumstances relating to the
despatch of the impugned Notices through e-mail on 1st April, 2022,
and thereafter.
th
6. A compliance affidavit dated 30 May, 2022 (‘Compliance
Affidavit’), was filed by the Department in this regard to set out the
technical procedure available to the JAO on the ITBA portal for
issuance of Notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 on 31st
March, 2021.
7. The Compliance Affidavit states as follows:
7.1. The JAO uses the ITBA software to generate Notice under
Section 148 of the Act of 1961, and thereafter, the ITBA software
triggers an e-mail, with the Notice appended as an attachment, using
the e-mail ID of the JAO, which is sent to the assessee's e-mail ID.
7.2. In the ITBA software, for generating Notice under Section 148
of the Act of 1961, the JAO has the following two options on the
ITBA Screen:
(a) Generating Notice + digitally signing it;
(b) Generating Notice (No option to digitally sign).
7.3. If the JAO exercises option (a) i.e., to generate Notice +
digitally sign it, a Notice is generated on the ITBA portal in an un-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 82 of 152
editable PDF format (i.e., as a PDF file). The JAO thereafter has up to
15 days to affix his/her Digital Signature Certificate (‘DSC’) on the
Notice so generated.
7.4. Upon affixation of the DSC by the JAO, the ITBA software’s e-
mail system will automatically trigger an e-mail to the assessee with
the DSC appended Notice enclosed as an attachment to the e-mail.
The ITBA software system will also share the DSC appended Notice
with the assessee’s E-filing portal’s software database (which is a
separate portal developed by the Department for the assessee).
7.5. In the event the JAO omits to affix his/her DSC to the Notice
within 15 days from the date of its generation, the said Notice (without
DSC) will be automatically triggered by the ITBA software system
through e-mail and it will also be shared on the E-filing portal’s
database.
7.6. In case the JAO opts for option (b) i.e., to generate the Notice
without DSC, the Notice is generated in an un-editable PDF format on
the ITBA portal. Upon generation itself, the ITBA software’s e-mail
system is triggered and an e-mail containing the said Notice (without
DSC) is sent to the e-mail address of the assessee and also uploaded
on the E-filing portal, which is accessible by the assessee for his/her
viewing.
7.7. The e-mail will be sent by the ITBA e-mail system to the
assessee only if the assessee’s valid e-mail ID is present in the ITBA
system.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 83 of 152
st
7.8. On 31 March, 2021, the average time taken for triggering the
e-mail process by the ITBA software system was approximately 6
hours. The said delay was due to the high number of documents being
generated on the said date. Therefore, a substantial time was taken by
the ITBA servers for triggering the e-mails and consequent receipt of
e-mails by the assessee.
7.9. The ITBA software’s e-mail triggering system is programmed
in such a manner that e-mails are triggered in a batch mode, in a
controlled manner i.e., at the rate of 400 documents per 2 minutes so
as to avoid getting the ITBA system’s IPs blacklisted by e-mail
service providers like Yahoo or Google.
7.10. The ITBA software’s process of triggering of e-mail and
sending of Notices to the E-filing portal’s data base is an automated
function.
7.11. The e-mails are triggered by the ITBA software using the
Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (‘SMTP’) from back end, which reach
the messaging gateway of the ITBA system. Upon reaching the
messaging gateway, message ID is created by the messaging gateway
and the same gets updated in the ‘e-mail table’. Thereafter, depending
on the availability of the destination domain server i.e. assessee’s
server and the user account, e-mails are either immediately delivered
to the assessee or re-attempted in cases of failure.
7.12. The JAO of his/her own has no control over the Notice
document generated on the ITBA portal, once it has been so
generated. After the notice document is generated on the ITBA portal,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 84 of 152
the JAO cannot alter, amend, or delete the said Notice document
through the ITBA system.
7.13. The ITBA portal allows the JAO to cancel a draft of the notice
under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, which is a step prior to its
generation. Once a notice has been generated on the ITBA software
portal, the JAO cannot cancel the same.
Arguments on behalf of the respondents
8. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr. Puneet Rai and Mr. Sunil Aggarwal,
the learned Senior Standing counsel submitted arguments on behalf of
the respondents.
9. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Senior Standing counsel for the
Department has submitted as follows:
9.1. After the generation of Notice by the JAO, a unique Document
Identification Number (‘DIN’) is assigned by the ITBA to the said
Notice and once a DIN has been assigned, the JAO loses complete
control over the Notice so generated by him/her i.e., the JAO can
neither amend, alter nor cancel the said Notice. The JAO loses “locus
poenitentiae” i.e. opportunity to withdraw the Notice once this DIN
has been assigned. Therefore, upon generation of a DIN on the ITBA
portal, the Notice should be considered as ‘issued’ and the despatch of
the notice through e-mail or any other mode should not be a pre-
requisite for determining whether the Notice has been issued to the
assessee. [ The Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M.M. Rubber
& Co. Tamil Nadu , [1992 Supp (1) SCC 471]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 85 of 152
9.2. In terms of Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
(‘Act of 2000’), the JAO is the “originator” and the ITBA portal is the
“computer resource” which is outside the control of the originator. As
per Section 13 of the Act of 2000, despatch occurs when, the notice
generated by the JAO (originator) enters the ITBA system (computer
resource) which is outside his/her control. Therefore, once the Notice
is generated by the JAO the time taken by the ITBA’s e-mail software
system to trigger the e-mail process should not be attributable to the
JAO. [ Qualimax Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. , 2010
SCC OnLine Del 2189, Para 32].
9.3. With respect to Notices dated 31st March, 2021, which bear
digital signature of a subsequent date and form part of category ‘A’,
the note appearing as a footer of the impugned Notices to the effect
that, “if digitally signed, the date of signature may be taken as date of
document” has no statutory backing. There are no Central Board of
Direct Taxes (‘CBDT’) instructions or circulars which have led to the
said note appearing in the communications issued through the ITBA
portal. Therefore, the Department is not bound by that note. Affixation
of DSC is neither mandatory nor a requirement for issuance of a
Notice by the JAO. Hence, the date of Notice should be reckoned as
31st March 2021 for category ‘A’ as well.
9.4. The impugned Notices forming part of category ‘C’, upon
st
generation, bears the date as 31 March, 2021, therefore, there can be
st
no dispute that the Notices were in fact generated by JAO on 31
March, 2021, and not thereafter. Further, there does not exist any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 86 of 152
possibility of ante-dating the said Notices once a DIN Number has
been assigned.
9.5. On perusal of the Compliance Affidavit, it can be seen that the
time lag in the despatch of Notice by the ITBA portal was on account
of the programming of the ITBA software itself and in no manner
attributable to the JAO. Therefore, the Notices which were digitally
signed on 31st March, 2021, though despatched by the ITBA software
on or after 01st April, 2021, should be declared to have been issued on
st
31 March, 2021, itself.
9.6. The ‘despatch’ of the notice is separate from ‘issue’. The words
‘issue’, ‘forward’ and ‘serve’ are distinct and the act of issuance
always precedes the act of ‘forward’ or ‘despatch’ or ‘sent out’.
[ Sanjay Engineering Corpn. v. Commissioner of Income Tax , (2000)
244 ITR 58].
9.7. Section 148 of the Act of 1961, specifically refers to the
‘Assessing Officer’ (‘AO’) by its designation. Therefore, the AO and
the ITBA portal are distinct, thus the time taken by the ITBA portal
for triggering the e-mail cannot be attributed to the AO.
9.8. As per the provisions of Section 282A (2) of the Act of 1961, if
a document duly mentions the name and designation of the officer, it
would be considered authenticated. Further, as per Rule 127A of the
Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘IT Rules’), every communication in
electronic form by an Income Tax Officer shall be deemed to be
authenticated if the name and office of the officer are mentioned in the
e-mail body or printed on the attachment to the e-mail. Therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 87 of 152
there is no mandatory requirement of affixing DSC and the Notices
falling under category ‘B’, which have been issued without the
affixation of DSC are also valid.
9.9. The Court should adopt a purposive interpretation to the
machinery provisions to give effect to the legislative intent to tax
rather than destroy the same. [ CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears , 2014 (6)
SCC 444].
10. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing counsel for the
Department submitted as follows:
10.1. The date of issue of the impugned Notices is a disputed question
of fact in the instant petitions and since the same have been filed at the
stage of ‘Notice for reopening of assessment’, the Court should not be
inclined to examine these factual aspects. [ Rajesh Sunderdas
Vaswani v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ,(2017) 88
taxmann.com 602 (Gujarat) at para 9 and 13].
10.2. The service of Notice upon the assessee is not a condition for
determining if a notice has been validly issued under Section 149 of
the Act of 1961. [ R.K. Upadhyaya Vs. Shanabhai P. Patel, (1987) 3
SCC 96] The phrase ‘forward’ as it appears in Clause (iv) of
Explanation 1 to Section 153 is not to be interpreted in the same
manner as words ‘issue’ or ‘serve’, the act of issue of Notice therefore
precedes the act of despatch. [ Sanjay Engineering (Supra)]
10.3. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of
Malavika Enterprises Vs. CBDT, (2022) 137 taxmann.com 398
(Madras) had, on facts, recorded that the e-mail attaching the Section
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 88 of 152
148 notice had been despatched on 31.03.2021 and thus, validly issued
under Section 149 of the Act of 1961.
11. Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, learned Senior Standing counsel for the
Department submitted as follows:
11.1. As per the ITBA Assessment User Manual (Version 1.9), the
moment the JAO exercises the option to ‘digitally sign’, the DSC
appended notice is sent by e-mail to assessee and simultaneously
shared with the E-filing portal account of assessee. The JAO therefore,
loses control over the process as soon as he/she chooses the option to
“Digitally Sign” and thereafter the entire process is machine driven.
Hence, in petitions where the impugned Notice bears the date and time
st
of digital signature as 31 March, 2021, the same are liable to be
dismissed.
11.2. Section 13 of the Act of 2000 would not apply to the impugned
Notices as the Section begins with “Save as otherwise agreed between
the originator and the addressee”. This denotes that there must be an
agreement in place between the tax collector and the tax payer for
application of Section 13 of the Act of 2000, and since there is no such
agreement, the same is not applicable in the instant petitions.
12. The submissions of the Department for each category are
summarized as under:
12.1. Category ‘A’: The date of affixation of DSC on the Notices on
st
1 April, 2021, or thereafter will not determine the date of the Notice.
st
The Notice is deemed to be issued on 31 March, 2021, when it was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 89 of 152
st
allotted a DIN by the ITBA. The despatch of Notices on 01 April,
2021, or thereafter is also not determinative for deciding when the
Notices were ‘issued’.
12.2. Category ‘B’: The affixation of DSC on the Notices is not
st
mandatory. The Notices were generated on 31 March, 2021, with a
DIN and the name & office of the Income Tax Officer was duly
printed thereon. Further, the e-mail appending the Notice was
triggered within 15 days as the JAO had selected option (a) on the
ITBA Screen but omitted to affix his/her signature within 15 days,
thus, causing delay in despatch of e-mail. In these facts, the
Department contends that the Notices were issued on 31st March,
2021. It is not disputed by the Department that the Notices were
st
despatched on or after 01 April, 2021, but the said fact as per the
Department is not determinative of the expression ‘shall be issued’ in
Section 149 of the Act of 1961.
st
12.3. Category ‘C’: The Notice with a DIN was generated on 31
March, 2021, and the DSC was affixed by the JAO on the same date;
nothing further could have been done by the JAO as the said notice
was outside his control. The delay in triggering of the e-mail by the
ITBA software system was because of the high volume of Notices
st
generated on 31 March, 2021. The e-mails containing the impugned
st
Notices were despatched on 01 April, 2021, or thereafter, to the
assessee, however that is not determinative of the expression ‘shall be
issued’ in Section 149 of the Act of 1961.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 90 of 152
12.4. Category ‘D’: The Department has not placed any material on
record nor submitted oral arguments for explaining the non-issuance
of e-mail or service through speed-post or any other mode. The
assessees came to know later on through E-filing portal on receipt of
subsequent notice under Section 142(1) of the Act of 1961.
st
12.5. Category ‘E’: The impugned Notices are dated 31 March,
st
2021, and bear DIN of the said date. The subsequent despatch on 01
April, 2021, or thereafter, through speed post does not affect the
validity of the Notice. The Notice is ‘issued’ validly for the purpose of
Section 149 of the Act of 1961.
13. The learned counsel for the respondents have not disputed that
the despatch of the impugned Notices in categories ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘E’
st
were admittedly done on or after 01 April, 2021. Their sole
st
contention was that upon generation of Notice on 31 March, 2021 the
test of ‘issued’ for the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961 was
satisfied. They have not addressed the Court on facts pertaining to
category ‘D’ notices. As per the assessees, there was no
communication of the notices falling under category ‘D’ either by e-
mail or speed post.
Arguments on behalf of the petitioners
14. Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Mr.
Kapil Goel, Mr. T.M. Shiv Kumar and Mr. Jaspal Singh Sethi, learned
counsel have submitted arguments on behalf of the petitioners.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 91 of 152
15. The petitioners’ counsel have rebutted the explanations and
submissions made by the respondent. The Counsel for all the
petitioner parties placed reliance on the judgment of Daujee
Abhushan Bhandar Vs. UOI, [2022] 136 taxmann.com 246
(Allahabad) to contend that the said judgment directly covers the issue
under consideration.
16. Ms. Kavita Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted as
follows:
16.1. The expression ‘issued’ has been judicially interpreted by the
Courts as framing of the order and taking necessary action to despatch
the same. Therefore, mere generation of Notice on the ITBA portal
does not satisfy the test of ‘issue’ without proving that the same has
been despatched within the time barring period. [ Delhi Development
Authority v. H.C. Khurana, (1993) 3 SCC 196]
16.2. Even though the service of notice is not relevant, however, for
determining if a notice has been validly issued, the notice should be
sent forth and go beyond the control of the authority issuing the same,
to conclude that it has been issued. [ Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) v.
Hiren Bhatt, (2011) 334 ITR 25 (Guj)]
16.3. The provisions of Section 149 of the Act of 1961, does not
contain the expression ‘Assessing Officer’. Therefore, no distinction
can be made between the ‘Assessing Officer’ and ‘ITBA portal’ under
Section 149 of the Act of 1961. The time taken by the ITBA software
for triggering of e-mail is attributable to AO and since admittedly the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 92 of 152
st
impugned Notices were despatched on 01 April, 2021, or thereafter,
the same are time barred.
16.4. The E-verification Scheme, 2021 issued by CBDT vide
th
Notification bearing No. 137/2021 dated 13 December, 2021 in paras
6, 9 and 11, states that affixation of DSC in E-proceedings is a
mandatory requirement. In the absence of DSC, the impugned Notices
would be null and void.
th
16.5. The circular bearing No. 19/2019 dated 14 August, 2019,
issued by CBDT mentions that the allotment of a DIN to the Notice is
a mandatory requirement prescribed by the aforesaid circular only to
maintain the audit trail of the documents issued by the Department and
to provide transparency in the process. The allotment of DIN to the
notice does not amount to issuance as sought to be contended by the
Department in these proceedings.
16.6. Since the impugned Notices have been issued in an electronic
form, the provisions of Section 2(1)(t), Section 3, Section 13, Section
66A of the Act of 2000 would be relevant as the same govern
electronic communication. In the present case, as per Section 13 of the
Act of 2000, the ITBA system should be considered as the
‘originator’. Therefore, the despatch of electronic record would occur
only when the same enters a computer resource outside the control of
the ITBA and only after such despatch would the notice be deemed to
have been issued.
16.7. The E-filing portal as viewed by the assessee clearly highlights
the fact that there is a system in place for duly displaying the date on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 93 of 152
which the Notice is ‘issued’ by the JAO. However, for the impugned
Notices under consideration, the date of issuance is conspicuously not
mentioned on any of the assessee’s accounts on the E-filing portal.
Illustratively the screen shot for PAN AAFCA 9047H is extracted
below:
| Notice/ Communication Reference ID: 100036566022 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Notice u/s | ITBA/ AST/<br>F/17/202122/<br>1034161151(1)<br>Document<br>reference ID | Description: [ITBA] Issue letter Submit<br>Response<br>Notice/Letter PDF<br>Issued on: 13-Jul-2021<br>Seek/View Adjournment |
| Notice/ Communication Reference ID: 100033602029 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 148<br>Notice u/s | ITBA/ AST/<br>S/148/2020-21<br>/1032044808(1)<br>Document<br>reference ID | Description: [ITBA] Notice u/s 148 View<br>Response<br>Notice/Letter PDF<br>of Income Tax Act, 1961.<br>Issued on: -<br>Seek/View Adjournment |
16.8. A conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of Act of 1961 and
Act of 2000, leads to the inescapable conclusion that for the Notice to
be validly ‘issued’ it has to be digitally signed and should be out of the
control of the originator for satisfying the test of ‘shall be issued’
under Section 149 of the Act of 1961.
16.9. The mere generation of notice on the ITBA Screen and signing
the same is not sufficient for satisfying the test of ‘issued’ and it is
only when the Notice has been despatched in terms of Section 13 of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 94 of 152
the Act of 2000, would the same be declared to be issued. In this
regard reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court
in UOI vs. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills, (2021) 2 SCC 209, wherein the
Supreme Court has held that a notification would be in effect from the
time and date on which it was uploaded on the e-gazette and not the
date mentioned in the notification.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ved Jain, submitted
as under:
17.1. The details of the date and time of despatch of the impugned
Notices by the ITBA servers are available with the Respondent. In the
case of Santosh Krishna HUF v. UOI , bearing Writ Tax No. 211 of
2022 and Mohan Lal Santwani Vs. UOI , bearing Writ Tax No. 569 of
2022, the Department provided the Allahabad High Court with the
details of: (1) generation of notice; (2) digital signing by JAO, and (3)
triggering of e-mail to the assessee. Further, the Allahabad High Court
in Mohan Lal Santwani (Supra) has directed that the date and time of
triggering e-mail should be reflected in the E-filing portal accessed by
assessee. Therefore, in the present cases, the aforesaid information,
even though available is being withheld by the respondents.
17.2. In the writ petitions, wherein the e-mail was triggered by ITBA
st
servers before 31 March, 2021, the respondents have readily
furnished the said information in their counter affidavits as is
evidenced by the counter filed in W.P. (C) No. 3038 of 2022, titled as
Sant Sandesh Media and Communication P. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward
22(3) . However, in the petitions where the e-mail was triggered on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 95 of 152
01st April, 2021, or thereafter, the said information has been withheld
and an untenable submission has been made by the respondents, that
the notice is deemed to have been issued on mere generation of the
notice on the ITBA Screen.
17.3. The contention of the respondent, that the Notice is deemed to
be ‘issued’ upon generation on the ITBA Screen is contradicted by the
Department’s own admission that upon generation the JAO has up to
15 days to sign the said Notice. This hiatus evidences that upon
generation, the notice is not deemed to be ‘issued’.
17.4. The Department has itself admitted in the Compliance
Affidavit, that the e-mail address of the assessee is inserted in the e-
mail table in ITBA, only when the ITBA e-mail software system is
triggered. Therefore, it is a necessary condition for valid issuance of a
notice, that the address of the assessee is mentioned for despatch and
no Notice can be held to be validly issued without the address being
duly mentioned. This further evidences the fact that the notice is
issued only upon its despatch from the ITBA servers and not upon
generation of the Notice on the ITBA screen.
17.5. The respondents have artificially created three distinct steps
i.e.,(a) generation of notice; (b) signing of notice; and (c) triggering of
e-mail.
17.6. The Notice can be said to have been ‘issued’ only when the e-
mail is triggered from the ITBA servers, hence the date and time of
when the e-mail was triggered from the ITBA servers should be taken
into consideration.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 96 of 152
17.7. With respect to cases falling in category ‘A’, wherein DSC was
st
affixed by JAO on 01 April, 2021, or thereafter, the date of DSC
shall be taken as the date of Notice, since the same is in consonance
with the note appearing in the footer on the impugned Notices.
17.8. The Compliance Affidavit, in paragraph 6 records the admission
of the Department that the impugned Notices were indeed despatched
by ITBA servers even in case of category ‘C’ on 01st April 2021 or
thereafter. Thus, there is a clear admission that the impugned Notices
are time barred.
18. Mr. Piyush Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted as under:
18.1. As per Section 148 of the Act of 1961, valid issuance of Notice
is a jurisdictional requirement not just a mere procedural requirement.
There is a heavy onus on the Department to provide the date on which
impugned Notices have been posted or the date and time on which the
e-mail was sent from the e-mail ID of the JAO.[ CIT v. Chetan Gupta,
(2016) 382 ITR 613]
18.2. All impugned Notices sent by e-mail have been issued from the
designated e-mail address of the JAOs, therefore, to allege that the
triggering of e-mail by the ITBA is separate from the JAO is factually
incorrect. The process of triggering e-mail by the ITBA software
system is for and on behalf of the JAO and therefore attributable to the
JAO.
18.3. The issue of Notice is only effective when the Notice has
moved out of the control of the AO for delivery to assessee. Hence,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 97 of 152
the date on which the e-mail has been transmitted from the e-mail ID
of the JAO would be the date of issuance of Notice under Section 149
of the Act of 1961.[ Yuvraj v. Income Tax Officer & Ors . in W.P.(C)
rd
No. 28293 of 2021 order dated 3 March 2022 (MP), and Kanubhai
M. Patel (Supra)]
18.4. It is only upon despatch of the e-mail from ITBA servers that
the impugned Notices could be held to have been issued [ Advance
Infradevelopers (P) Ltd. v. Adjudicating Authority, (2021) 127
taxmann.com 197 (Madras)]:
“47. The argument in regard to the order being beyond the
control of the person passing it is also relevant, based upon
the principle that an order must be deemed to be complete
and valid only when it is prepared, finalised and transmitted
for communication to the concerned person.”
19. Mr. Jaspal Singh Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted as follows:
19.1. The screenshot annexed as Annexure P-5 in W.P. (C) No. 4567
of 2022 shows that each Notice in addition to a DIN, also contains a
Communication Reference ID (‘CRI’). The CRI is generated by the
ITBA portal to record the date of the issuance of the Notice. Although
the CRI for the impugned Notices issued under Section 148 of the Act
of 1961, is displayed on the E-filing portal, the date of issuance is
conspicuously absent.
19.2. Per contra, another screenshot annexed as Annexure P-3 in the
same writ petition, shows that in the case of other Notices issued
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 98 of 152
subsequently in 2021, to the same assessee, the date of issuance is
duly mentioned along with the CRI on the E-filing portal. Relevant
portion of the screen shot is extracted herein below:
“ …
| Notice/ Communication Reference ID: 100040446529 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 142(2)<br>Notice<br>u/s | ITBA/ AST/<br>F/142(1)/2021-<br>22/1037155946<br>(1)<br>Document<br>reference ID | Description: [ITBA] Notice u/s 142 View Response<br>of Income Tax Act 1961. Notice/Letter PDF<br>Issued on: 23-Nov-2021<br>Response Due Date:<br>Seek/View Adjournment<br>08-Dec-2021 | ||
| Notice/ Communication Reference ID: 100033640093 | ||||
| 148<br>Notice<br>u/s | ITBA/ AST/<br>S/148/2020-21<br>/1032078906(1)<br>Document<br>reference ID | Description: [ITBA] Notice u/s 148 Submit Response<br>of Income Tax Act 1961.<br>Issued on: - Notice/Letter PDF<br>Seek/View Adjournment |
…”
19.3. The date of issuance has been selectively withheld only with
respect to the impugned Notices, as providing the information would
make it evident that the date of issuance even as per the ITBA
software system is 01st April, 2021, or thereafter, as the software is
also programmed to record the date of issuance as the date of
despatch.
20. Mr. T.M. Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 99 of 152
20.1. As per the provisions of Section 282A of the Act of 1961, for a
Notice or any other document to be issued by the income tax
authority, such a Notice or document has to be signed and either
‘issued’ in paper form or ‘communicated’ in electronic form. The
expression ‘communicated’ is also mentioned in Sections 158AB (5),
253(3) and 264 (3) of the Act of 1961.
20.2. While referring to correspondence in the digitized world, the
word ‘issued’ has been replaced with the word ‘communicated’ in
Section 282A of the Act of 1961. Therefore, when a Notice is in paper
form, it has to leave the office of the concerned Authority for despatch
to constitute a valid issuance. However, in digital form, the
communication is instant and therefore, merely putting the notice into
transmission cannot be deemed to be communication. To constitute a
valid communication the Notice has to be effectively sent out by the
concerned authority to the assessee.
20.3. The Section 282A of the Act of 1961, stipulates communication
of the Notice as a sine qua non for due issuance of a Notice. Hence,
the submission that generation of notice on the ITBA screen satisfies
the condition of issued under Section 149 is contrary to the mandate of
Section 282A of the Act of 1961.
20.4. Until the ITBA servers transmit the e-mail to the destination
servers of the assessee’s e-mail service provider, there can be no valid
communication of the Notice therefore, consequently, there would be
no valid issuance of Notice under Section 149 read with Section 282A
of the Act of 1961.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 100 of 152
21. Mr. Kapil Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as
under:
21.1. The requirement of issuance of Notice under Section 149 of the
Act of 1961 is not fulfilled by merely signing of the Section 148
Notice. For valid issuance, the Notice has to be sent to the assessee
st
within the end of the relevant AY i.e. 31 March, 2021. [ Smt. Parveen
Amin Bhathara v. the Income Tax Officer , Writ Appeal No. 1795 of
2021 decided on 27th June 2022]
21.2. The Karnataka High Court, in the judgment of Infineon
Technologies AG AM Campeon v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-
Tax ; Writ Petition No. 49458 of 2018 decided on 24th June, 2022, at
paragraphs 6 and 12 have concluded that since the Notice, although
st th
dated 31 March, 2017, was booked for courier on 04 April, 2017, it
th
would be considered to be issued on 04 April, 2017. The Notice was
held to be time barred since it was required to be issued on or before
st
31 March, 2017. The date of despatch was determinative of issuance
for the provision of Section 149 of the Act of 1961 and not the date of
Notice.
21.3. The relevant information with respect to the date of issuance of
Notice has been left blank for each of the impugned Notices issued to
the petitioners in the present matters. The said date is not available on
the assessee’s E-filing portal account because if the said information is
shared, it would disclose that the date of issuance, even as per the
st
ITBA software, is 1 April, 2021, or thereafter.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 101 of 152
21.4. To demonstrate the aforesaid, the Annexure R-2 annexed with
the Department’s Counter Affidavit in W.P. (C) No. 856 of 2022 can
be perused, which is the screenshot of the ITBA screen of the assessee
as visible to the JAO only. In this Annexure, the Department itself has
extracted relevant portion of the screenshot, which has complete
details of the time at which the e-mail was sent, time at which the e-
mail was delivered, etc. evidencing that the date and time when the e-
mail containing the impugned Notice as an attachment was sent by the
ITBA servers, is duly available with the Department. The relevant
extract of the screenshot is reproduced herein below:
“…
| Register Details | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Despa<br>tch No | Date<br>of<br>issue | PAN/T<br>AN | Address<br>ee<br>Name | Subj<br>ect | Comm.<br>Ref. No. | View<br>Docume<br>nts | Mode<br>of<br>Despat<br>ch | Dat<br>e of<br>De<br>spa<br>tch | Da<br>te<br>of<br>Ser<br>vic<br>e | Statu<br>s | |||
| 31.<br>03.<br>2021 | AHIPG<br>3000F | ANAND<br>GOEL | Noti<br>ce<br>u/s<br>148 | ITBA/<br>AST/ S/<br>148/<br>2020 -<br>21/1032<br>11/ 6278<br>(1) | Attachm<br>ents | Emai<br>l<br>Deliv<br>ered |
…”
| Sent Email (?) | Email Delivery<br>Status | Email Sent On | Email Delivered On | Shared with e –<br>Proceeding on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Email Details | Delivered | 01/04/2021<br>05:29:41 AM | 01/04/2021<br>05:29:45 AM | 03/04/2021<br>04:01:39 AM |
…..”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 102 of 152
21.5. Therefore, the time when the e-mail containing the impugned
Notice as an attachment was sent by the ITBA servers, is duly
available with the Department in its ITBA portal.
22. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pawan Shree
Agarwal, submitted as under:
22.1. The impugned Notice in this petition is distinct from Categories
‘A’ to ‘E’ identified in the order dated 24th March, 2022. The
impugned Notice was never served to the petitioner on his registered
e-mail ID. Instead, it was sent to an unrelated e-mail address. The
petitioner learnt about the impugned Notice only upon checking his E-
filing portal account. Therefore, since there was no communication of
the notice the Notice should be deemed to not have been issued.
23. Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 4919 of 2022, submitted as under:
23.1. The impugned Notice issued by the respondent was not served
on the petitioner/assessee’s registered e-mail ID and was sent to an
unrelated e-mail ID. The petitioner learnt about the impugned Notice
which was neither signed physically nor any DSC was appended,
incidentally through its E-filing portal. Therefore, there has been no
compliance of the provisions of Section 149 of the Act of 1961, while
issuing the impugned Notice.
Questions of law framed
24. The aforementioned submissions made by both the parties give
rise to the following questions of law for consideration by this Court: -
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 103 of 152
I. Whether the JAO’s act of generating Notice in the ITBA
st
portal on 31 March, 2021, without despatching the Notice
meets the test of the expression ‘shall be issued’ in Section
149 of the Act of 1961, and saves the Notices from being
time barred?
II. Whether “despatch” as per Section 13 of the Act of 2000 is
sine qua non for issuance of Notice through electronic mail
for the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961?
III. Whether the time taken by the ITBA’s e-mail software
st
system on 31 March, 2021, in despatching the e-mails to
the assessees is not attributable to the JAOs and the
st
Notices will be deemed to have been issued on 31 March,
2021?
IV. Whether the Section 148 Notices sent as an attachment
through e-mails, from the designated e-mail addresses of
the JAOs, which do not bear the respective JAO’s digital
signature, are valid under Section 282A the Act of 1961
read with Rule 127A of the IT Rules?
V. Whether upload of the Section 148 Notice on the “My
Account” of the assessee on the E-filing portal is valid
transmission under the Act of 1961?
Analysis and reasons
25. Question No. (I): Whether the JAO’s act of generating Notice
st
in the ITBA portal on 31 March, 2021, without despatching the
Notice meets the test of the expression ‘shall be issued’ in Section 149
of the Act of 1961, and saves the Notices from being time barred?
- The Court has answered this in the negative in favour of the
assessee.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 104 of 152
25.1. It has emerged as an admitted position on facts, that the e-mails
st
attaching the impugned Notices dated 31 March, 2021, were
st
despatched by the ITBA servers on 01 April, 2021, or thereafter.
25.2. Faced with the aforesaid factual position, it has been contended
by the Department that since generation of impugned Notices on the
st
ITBA portal on 31 March, 2021, is undisputed, the singular act of
generation of Notice by JAO satisfies the requirement of ‘issued’ for
the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961 and despatch of the
st
Notice on 31 March, 2021 is not a mandatory requirement.
25.3. The Department contends that since each of the impugned
st
Notices bear a DIN, its generation as on 31 March, 2021, is beyond
doubt. It is further contended that since, on the ITBA portal, after
generation of Notice the JAO is left with no power to amend, alter,
cancel or ante-date the Notice, the said act of generation conclusively
establishes that the Notice has been issued.
25.4. The petitioners as noted above have opposed this contention of
the Department as being contrary to settled law interpreting the
expression ‘issued’, ‘shall be issued’ and the dictionary meaning of
the phrase ‘issue’. It is contended that under the Act of 1961, a Notice
is held to be ‘issued’ on the date of its due despatch and not on the
date the notice is drawn up.
25.5. It would be useful to refer to the judgments relied upon by the
petitioners, which clearly bring out that for an authority to contend
that a Notice has been issued, the same must be duly despatched by
the issuing authority. The first instructive judgment on this point is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 105 of 152
Delhi Development Authority (Supra) at paragraphs 5, 13 and 15,
which reads as under:
“…
5. The substituted clause (ii) in para 2, in O.M. dated September
14, 1992, is as under:
“(ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge-sheet
has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending;
and”
…
13. …The context in which the word ‘issued’ has been used,
merely means that the decision to initiate disciplinary
proceedings is taken and translated into action by despatch of
the charge-sheet leaving no doubt that the decision had been
taken. The contrary view would defeat the object by enabling
the government servant, if so inclined, to evade service and
thereby frustrate the decision and get promotion in spite of that
decision. Obviously, the contrary view cannot be taken.
…
15. The meaning of the word ‘issued’, on which considerable
stress was laid by learned counsel for the respondent, has to be
gathered from the context in which it is used. Meanings of the
word ‘issue’ given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
include : ‘to give exit to; to send forth, or allow to pass out; to
let out; … to give or send out authoritatively or officially; to
send forth or deal out formally or publicly; to emit, put into
circulation’. The issue of a charge-sheet, therefore, means its
despatch to the government servant, and this act is complete the
moment steps are taken for the purpose, by framing the charge-
sheet and despatching it to the government servant, the further
fact of its actual service on the government servant not being a
necessary part of its requirement
…”
(Emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 106 of 152
In the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court emphatically laid
down that despatch is an essential condition to complete the act of
issuance. The Court clarified that service on the recipient was not a
condition precedent for satisfying the act of issuance.
25.6. It would also be useful to refer to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (Supra). In the said case, the
Supreme Court was concerned with the controversy of the validity of a
notice with reference to Sections 148 and 149 of the Act of 1961. In
the said case, the notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, was
st
despatched by registered post on 31 March, 1970, but the same was
rd
received by the assessee on 03 April, 1970; and therefore, the Gujarat
High Court after observing that the expression ‘issued’ and ‘served’ in
Section 148 and 149 have the same meaning, held that the notice was
time barred. In appeal, the Supreme Court after taking note that the
st
Notice was despatched by registered post on 31 March, 1970, set
aside the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that
the service of notice is not a condition precedent for satisfying the
condition of “issued”. The date of despatch of the notice was taken
into consideration by the Supreme Court as the relevant date for
determining that the notice has been validly issued for the purpose of
Section 149 of the Act of 1961. The date of notice is discernible from
1
the judgment of High Cour t .
25.7. The contention of the Department that since the impugned
st
Notices were generated and digitally signed on 31 March, 2021, the
1
Shanabhai P. Patel Vs. R.K. Upadhyaya reported in 1973 SCC Online Guj 42 : (1974) 96 ITR141
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 107 of 152
same should be considered as the date of issue, notwithstanding the
fact that the same had not been despatched, was categorically rejected
by the Madras High Court in Smt. Parveen Amin Bhathara (Supra)
following the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Kanubhai M. Patel
(HUF) (Supra). The Gujarat High Court, dealing with a notice issued
in paper form, at paragraphs 13 and 16 observed as under:
"…
13. …Whereas, on behalf of the revenue, it has been contended
that the notices were actually signed on 31.3.2010, hence, the
said date would be the date of issue and as such, the impugned
notices have been issued within the time limit prescribed under
section 149 of the Act.
…
16. Thus, the expression to issue in the context of issuance of
notices, writs and process, has been attributed the meaning, to
send out; to place in the hands of the proper officer for service.
The expression “shall be issued” as used in section 149 would
therefore have to be read in the aforesaid context. In the present
case, the impugned notices have been signed on 31.03.2010,
whereas the same were sent to the speed post centre for booking
only on 07.04.2010. Considering the definition of the word
issue, it is apparent that merely signing the notices on
31.03.2010, cannot be equated with issuance of notice as
contemplated under section 149 of the Act. The date of issue
would be the date on which the same were handed over for
service to the proper officer, which in the facts of the present
case would be the date on which the said notices were actually
handed over to the post office for the purpose of booking for the
purpose of effecting service on the petitioners. Till the point of
time the envelopes are properly stamped with adequate value of
postal stamps, it cannot be stated that the process of issue is
complete. In the facts of the present case, the impugned notices
having been sent for booking to the Speed Post Centre only on
07.04.2010, the date of issue of the said notices would be
07.04.2010 and not 31.03.2010, as contended on behalf of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 108 of 152
revenue. In the circumstances, impugned the notices under
section 148 in relation to assessment year 2003-04, having been
issued on 07.04.2010 which is clearly beyond the period of six
years from the end of the relevant assessment year, are clearly
barred by limitation and as such, cannot be sustained.
…”
(Emphasis Supplied)
The Gujarat High Court categorically held that it is on the date
of despatch of the Section 148 notice that the same will be held to be
issued for the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961.
25.8. The Madras High Court in Smt. Parveen Amin Bhathara
(Supra), after approving the dicta of Kanubhai Patel (Supra) and
considering Section 282 of the Act of 1961 and Rule 127 of IT Rules,
held as under:
“…
8. In the present case, the respondent reopened the assessment
of the appellant for the assessment year 2011-12, through notice
dated 31.03.2018 under section 148 of the Act. Admittedly, the
limitation period of six years for reopening the assessment,
came to an end on 31.03.2018. The main plank of contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant is that the notice under
section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2018 has been received by
the appellant through e-mail only on 18.04.2018 i.e., after the
expiry of six years from the end of the assessment year under
consideration and hence, the same is clearly barred by
limitation, whereas the Department contended that mere signing
of notice by the respondent on 31.03.2018 amounts to issuance
of notice under section 149 of the Act and therefore, the same is
within the limitation period.
…
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 109 of 152
12. In Kanubhai M. Patel v. Hiren Bhatt and others [(2011)
334 ITR 25 (Guj)], it was held by the Gujarat High Court that
“date of issuance of notice under Section 148 Income Tax Act
has to be reckoned not from the date when it was issued, but on
the date when it was actually delivered on the assessee”…
…
Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid decisions that the
issuance of notice under section 149 is complete only when the
same is issued in the manner as prescribed under section 282
r/w rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules prescribing the mode of
service of notice under the Act. The signing of notice would not
amount to issuance of notice as contemplated under section 149
of the Act. In other words, the requirement of issuance of notice
under section 149 is not mere signing of the notice under
section 148, but is sent to the proper person within the end of
the relevant assessment year.
…”
(Emphasis Supplied)
In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Madras High Court
categorically rejected the submission of the Department that signing of
Notice, without despatch, would amount to issuance of Notice as
contemplated under Section 149 of the Act of 1961.
25.9. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Yuvraj v. Income Tax
Officer (Supra) similarly dealt with a case of a Section 148 Notice
st
dated 31 March, 2021, which was sent by e-mail to the assessee on
th
16 April, 2021.The High Court held that the Notice was issued on
th
16 April, 2021 and quashed the same reserving liberty to the
Department to issue a fresh Notice under Section 148A of the Act of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 110 of 152
1961, in accordance with law. The grounds for challenging the
impugned Notice in the said case were same as have been raised
herein for challenging the impugned Notices falling under category
‘A’ and ‘B’.
25.10. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Daujee Abhusan
st
Bhandar (Supra) , was earliest to hold that drawing up a Notice on 31
March, 2021, and digitally signing the same, in the absence of
despatch, does not amount to issuance of Notice within the meaning of
Section 149 of the Act of 1961. The High Court after elaborately
discussing the provisions of Sections 282 and 282A of the Act of
1961, and the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 2000, held that,
st
since the impugned Notice therein though dated 31 March, 2021, was
th
issued through e-mail on 06 April, 2021, the same was time barred
and therefore liable to be quashed. The Court at paragraph 29 and 30
held as under:
“…
29. Thus, considering the provisions of sections 282 and 282A
of the Act, 1961 and the provisions of section 13 of the Act,
2000 and meaning of the word "issue" we find that firstly notice
shall be signed by the assessing authority and then it has to be
issued either in paper form or be communicated in electronic
form by delivering or transmitting the copy thereof to the person
therein named by modes provided in section 282 which includes
transmitting in the form of electronic record. Section 13(1) of
the Act, 2000 provides that unless otherwise agreed, the
despatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters into
computer resources outside the control of the originator. Thus,
the point of time when a digitally signed notice in the form of
electronic record is entered in computer resources outside the
control of the originator i.e. the assessing authority that shall
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 111 of 152
the date and time of issuance of notice under section 148 read
with section 149 of the Act, 1961.
30. In view of the discussion made above, we hold that mere
digitally signing the notice is not the issuance of notice. Since
the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 was
issued to the petitioner on 6-4-2021 through e-mail, therefore,
we hold that the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act,
1961 is time barred. Consequently, the impugned notice is
quashed.
…”
(Emphasis Supplied)
25.11. In the subsequent judgments of the Allahabad High Court in
the case of Santosh Krishna HUF (Supra) and Mohan Lal Santwani
(Supra) the High Court summoned the details of date and time of
triggering of e-mail by the ITBA e-mail software system to determine
the date of issuance of the e-mail attaching the Notice. The High Court
held the said date of triggering of e-mail to be the date of issue of
Section 148 Notice for the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961.
25.12.The review of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court
and the several High Courts shows that all Courts have consistently
held that the expression ‘issue’ in its common parlance and its legal
interpretation means that the issuer of the notice must after drawing up
the notice and signing the notice, make an overt act to ensure due
despatch of the notice to the addressee. It is only upon due despatch,
that the notice can be said to have been ‘issued’.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 112 of 152
25.13. Further, a perusal of the Compliance Affidavit reveals that
while the function of generation of Notice on ITBA portal and digital
signing of the Notice is executed by the JAO, the function of drafting
of the e-mail to which the Notice is attached and triggering the e-mail
to the assessee is performed by the ITBA e-mail software system.
Thus, mere generation of Notice on the ITBA Screen cannot in
fact or in law constitute issue of notice, whether the notice is issued in
paper form or electronic form. In case of paper form, the notice must
be despatched by post on or before 31st March 2021 and for
communication in electronic form the e-mail should have been
st
despatched on or before 31 March 2021.
In the present writ petitions, the despatch by post and e-mail
st
was carried out on or after 01 April 2021 and therefore, we hold that,
the impugned Notices were not issued on 31st March 2021.
25.14. The Department has not disputed the correctness of the law
settled by the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (Supra)
in which the Court was concerned with issuance of the Section 148
notice in paper form and concluded that, since the date of despatch
was within prescribed period of limitation, the notice was validly
issued for the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961, and held that
the date of service of notice was not relevant. In fact, the Department
has relied upon the said judgment. The said judgment squarely applies
to Notice classified as category ‘E’. The amendments to the Act of
1961 including Section 282A was to enable the income tax authority
to issue notice either in paper form or electronic form and were made
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 113 of 152
to provide an adequate legal framework for paperless assessment.
Similarly, setting up of the digital platform of ITBA portal and the E-
filing portal is for facilitating assessment proceedings electronically.
The said amendments or the use of ITBA portal by Department for
issuing notice in no manner mitigates against or dispense with the
legal requirement of the Department to ensure due despatch of the
Section 148 notice to satisfy the test of Section 149 of the Act of 1961.
The contention of the Department that upon generation of the Notice
on the ITBA Screen simpliciter (even before its despatch) is to be held
to be issued does not persuade the Court and is contrary to the
judgment relied upon by the said party.
25.15. This Court in the case of Court On its Own Motion v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 352 ITR 273 , while dealing
with Section 143(1) of the Act of 1961, has held that the law requires
that, the intimation under Section 143(1) should be communicated to
the assessee. The uncommunicated orders or intimations cannot be
enforced and are not valid. The relevant extract of the aforesaid
decision is reproduced hereinunder:
“…
33. The second grievance of the assessee is with regard to the
uncommunicated intimiations under Section 143(1) which
remained on paper/file or the computer of the Assessing Officer.
This is serious challenge and a matter of grave concern. The
law requires intimation under Section 143(1) should be
communicated to the assessee, if there is an adjustment made in
the return resulting either in demand or reduction in refund.
The uncommunicated orders/intimations cannot be enforced
and are not valid. …
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 114 of 152
…But when there is failure to despatch or send
communication/intimation to the assessee consequences must
follow. Such intimation/order prior to 31 March, 2010, will be
treated as non est or invalid for want of communication/service
within a reasonable time. This exercise, it is desirable should be
undertaken expeditiously by the Assessing Officers. CBDT will
issue instructions to the Assessing Officers.
…”
(Emphasis Supplied)
25.16. The Department sought to contend that the Madras High Court
in Malavika Enterprises (Supra) has struck a discordant chord with
the judgment in the Daujee Abhusan Bhandar (Supra). However, on
a perusal of the judgment in Malavika Enterprises (Supra) , we find
st
that in the said case the notice had been despatched on 31 March,
2021, at 6.42 pm by the ITBA server, though served on the assessee
st
on 01 April, 2021, at 2.00 am and therefore, the Madras High Court
st
concluded that the notice has been validly issued on 31 March, 2021.
The relevant portion of paragraph 8 of this judgment reads as follows:
“…
8. Coming to the facts of the case, it is stated that notice under
section 148 of the Act of 1961 is said to have been issued on 31-
3-2021 for the assessment year 2013-2014, followed by
consequential notices. It is the case of the petitioner that the
notice is said to have been issued vide email at 6.42 pm, but was
served on 1-4-2021 at 2 am and, therefore, the unamended
provision of section 148 of the Act of 1961 would not be
applicable to the case…
…”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 115 of 152
We do not find that this judgment takes the case of the Department
any further as the Section 148 notice in the case was duly despatched
st
on 31 March, 2021.
25.17. The Department has not cited any judgment which would
support its contention that mere drawing up of Notice and signing it
(pending despatch) amounts to issuance. The counsel for the
respondent placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in M.M. Rubber & Co. (Supra). In the said case as well, the
apex Court was concerned with the issue of limitation while
determining if the impugned order therein had been passed within
time. However, the provision under consideration was Section 35-E
(3) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (“Act of 1944”), which
reads as under:
“…
Sub-Section (3) of Section 35E of the Act which deals with the
limitation for exercise of the powers under sub- sections (1) and
(2) of the Act and which is the relevant provision for
consideration in this appeal reads as follows:
" No order shall be made under sub-section (1) or subsection (2)
after the expiry of one year from the date of the decision or
order of the adjudicating authority.
…"
The Court in the aforesaid judgment deliberated with reference
to the phrase “No order shall be made” in Section 35-E(3) of the Act
of 1944 and concluded that the date on which the order was made by
the adjudicatory authority by signing it is a relevant date for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 116 of 152
determining if it was passed within limitation. As is evident, the
expression used in Section 35-E (3) of the Act of 1944, is “ no order
shall be made ” which is distinct from the expression used in the
Section 149 of the Act of 1961 which reads as “ No notice under
Section 148 shall be issued ” . The two statutory provisions are
materially different and the ratio of the said judgment can have no
bearing in interpreting Section 149 of the Act of 1961.
25.18.Additionally, the contention of the counsel for the Department
that generation of Section 148 Notice on ITBA screen amounts to
“issued” within the meaning of Section 149 of the Act of 1961 is not
borne out from the instructions issued by the Directorate of Income
Tax (Systems). On the contrary, the said circulars duly recognize that
after generation of notice the concerned income tax authority is
required to take overt steps for issuing the said notice to the assessee.
The circulars use the words “generation” and “issuance” distinctively.
In this regard reference may be made illustratively to the following
Instructions:
a. The ITBA Assessment Instruction No. 2 [F.No.
System/ITBA/Instruction/Assessment/16-17/177 dated
01.08.2016] issued by the Directorate of Income Tax
(System) mentions that:
“the AO Staff/ AO Inspector will not be able to generate the
notice but will be able to view the notices already generated by
the AO for taking a printout of the same, for issue to the
assessee.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 117 of 152
b. The ITBA Assessment Instruction No. 3 [F No.
System/ITBA/Instruction/Assessment/177/16-17/] dated
03.02.2017 , also illustrates the same distinction:
“Details of the Authority/party from whom information is
requisitioned can be entered alongwith date for compliance and
t he Notice can then be generated and issued. ”
25.19. The counsel for the Department have also sought to argue that
generation of a Notice with DIN on ITBA Screen conclusively
indicates that the Notice has been irrevocably issued. The submission
of the respondent is not borne out from the applicable circular
regarding DIN issued by CBDT and is therefore a mere ipse dixit of
the counsel.
25.20. As per Circular No. 19/2019 (F. No. 225/95/2019-ITA.II)
th
dated 14 August , 2019 issued by the CBDT, the DIN was introduced
to maintain a proper audit of trail of communications issued by
income tax authority. The said circular does not state that the
generation of DIN would automatically constitute issuance of the
notice. Relevant extract from the aforementioned circular is
reproduced as under:
“…
…However, it has been brought to the notice of Central Board
of Direct Taxes (the Board) that there have been some instances
in which the notice, order, summons, letter and any
correspondence (hereinafter referred to as “communication”)
were found to have been issued manually, without maintaining
a proper audit trail of such communication.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 118 of 152
2. In order to prevent such instances and to maintain proper
audit trail of all communication, the Board in exercise of power
under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act"), has decided that no communication
shall be issued by any income tax authority relating to
assessment, appeals, orders, statutory or otherwise, exemptions,
enquiry, investigation, verification of information, penalty,
prosecution, rectification, approval etc. to the assessee or any
other person, on or after the 1st day of October, 2019 unless a
computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) has
been allotted and is duly quoted in the body of' such
communication.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
In fact, in several cases, we take judicial notice that even as on
date the JAOs issue notices which do not have DIN and in those cases
the Department contends that the absence of the DIN does not make
those notices invalid.
25.21. The contention of the counsel for the Department that since the
date of the issuance of the Notices is a disputed issue of fact the same
should not be entertained in the writ petitions is also without merit.
There is no dispute in the present cases and it has been conceded
during rejoinder arguments that the Notices have been despatched on
st
or after 1 April, 2021, unlike in the case of Rajesh Sunderdas
Vaswani (Supra) where the date of despatch was seriously disputed.
This Court has only been called upon to determine the legal effect of
st
the despatch of 1 April 2021 and thereafter, on the validity of the
st
notices dated 31 March, 2021.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 119 of 152
25.22. In this regard, it would be useful to note that, the
impugned Notice in W.P. (C) 5316 of 2022 was classified in category
‘C’. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the JAO on
th
30 July 2022 determined that the said Notice though generated and
st
signed on 31 March 2021 was issued through e-mail by the ITBA
th
servers on 6 April, 2021. It has been brought to this Court’s attention
that the JAO has now self-determined that the same shall be governed
by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (Supra) and
st
JAO has accordingly proceeded to treat the Notice dated 31 March
2021 as notice under Section 148A(b).
The aforesaid acts of the JAO belie the submissions of the
counsel for the Department that the generation of the Notice on the
ITBA screen constitutes issuance. It further substantiates the
contention of the petitioners that the date and time of issue of the e-
mails by the ITBA servers are readily available with the Department
and therefore there is no disputed issue of facts.
25.23. We therefore answer question no. (I) in negative against the
Department and hold that the impugned Notices dated 31st March,
st
2021, which were despatched on 1 April, 2021, or thereafter, would
not meet the test of ‘issued’ under Section 149 of the Act of 1961 and
would be time barred, unless saved by the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Ashish Aggarwal (Supra).
25.24. With respect to impugned Notices falling in category ‘A’, there
is an additional factor which evidences that the said Notices were
st
admittedly not issued on 31 March, 2021. The said Notices were
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 120 of 152
st
digitally signed on 01 April, 2021, or thereafter. The note appearing
at the foot of each Notice clearly declares that the date of the
affixation of digital signature shall be treated as the date of the Notice.
The note reads “if digitally signed, the date of signature may be taken
as date of document” . In these Notices therefore, the date of the
Notice itself is determined by the date of affixation of digital signature
and not the date of generation. The contention of the Department that,
the said note appearing at the footer of the Notice has no basis in law
and should be ignored by this Court, cannot be accepted. The
Department cannot deny the contents of its own Notice and it is bound
by the said contents.
25.25. In this regard it will also be useful to refer to Para 2.10.6 of the
ITBA, User Assessment Manual, Version 1.9, August 2020, as
referred to by the Department in its Counter Affidavit in W.P. (C) No.
13814 of 2021. The said instruction draws the attention of the income
tax officer to the consequence of the date of digital signature and date
of generation of document being different, if the digital signatures are
affixed subsequently. Para 2.10.6 reads as under:
“…
ii. Generate and Digitally sign later (Applicable for single as
well as bulk generation):
Click Generate and Digitally sign later. In this case, document
will be generated successfully immediately.
To sign the document later, go to “ View/Edit Despatch
Register ” Screen. Select the status as ‘Pending for signing’
and Search .
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 121 of 152
Select the document and click Sign Documents . Ensure DSC is
attached to the system.
Select the DSC of the user.
Click Sign . Document will be signed succesfully. However,
this option is required to be very carefully exercised in the
case of orders as the date of generation of document and date
of digital sign may be different as these will be actual date of
generation and digital signing.
…”
Cat
Finding for Notices falling under category ‘A’
We therefore hold that the impugned Notices falling under category
‘A’ shall be held to be dated as on the date DSC was affixed. Since
st
the date of affixation of DSC on the impugned Notices is 1 April
2021 and thereafter they were sent and delivered through the ITBA
st
portal on or after 1 of April 2021, the impugned Notices falling under
st
category ‘A’ can only be said to have been issued on or after 1 of
April 2021.
Illustratively, in W.P. (C) 1759/2022 the Notice even though
st st
dated 31 March 2021 was digitally signed on 1 April 2021 and
th
thereafter was sent and delivered through ITBA portal on 15 April
st
2021, in this case, the date of the impugned Notice is 1 April 2021
(i.e., the date on which it was digitally signed) and it was issued
th
through e-mail on the 15 of April 2021.
Finding for Notices falling under category ‘E’
25.26. With respect to the impugned Notices which have been
classified as category ‘E’, the date of despatch through speed post is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 122 of 152
determined as the date of issuance following the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (Supra).
st
Illustratively, in W.P. (C) 11010 of 2021, the Notice dated 31
th
March 2021 was booked for despatch through speed post on 10 June
2021, in this case, the Notice can be said to have been issued only on
th
10 June 2021 i.e. when it was booked for despatch through speed
post.
25.27. With respect to the impugned Notices sent by e-mail and
forming subject matter of category ‘C’ the Department has raised an
additional defence that though the e-mails were admittedly despatched
st
on 01 April, 2021 or thereafter, the same was due to the time taken by
ITBA e-mail software system to trigger the e-mails, this delay in
despatch should not be attributed to the JAO for despatch and the
st
Notices should be ‘ deemed’ to have been issued on 31 March, 2021.
This contention of the Department is specifically dealt with in answer
to question no. (III).
26. Question No. (II): Whether “despatch” as per Section 13 of the
Act of 2000 is sine qua non for issuance of Notice through electronic
mail for the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961?- T he Court
has answered this is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee.
AND
Question No. (III): Whether the time taken by the ITBA’s e-mail
st
software system on 31 March, 2021, in despatching the e-mails to the
assessee is not attributable to the JAOs and the notices will be deemed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 123 of 152
to have been issued on 31st March, 2021? - The Court has answered
this in the negative against the Department.
26.1. The Principal Director General of Income Tax (Systems),
empowered by Rule 127(3) of IT Rules vide Notification No. 02/2016
dated 3rd February, 2016 and Notification No. 04/2017 dated 3rd
April, 2017 has laid down the procedure, formats and standards for
ensuring secured transmission of electronic communication for service
of notice under Section 282 of the Act of 1961.
26.2. These notifications categorically mention that the time and
place of despatch and receipt of electronic communications made by
the Income Tax authorities shall have the same meaning as provided
in Section 13 of the Act of 2000. The relevant portions of the
notifications are reproduced hereinunder: -
“…
Notification No. 2/2016 dated 3rd February,
2016DGIT(S)/DIT(S)-3/AST/Paperless Assessment
Proceedings/96/2015-1 authorized by the Principal Director
General of Income Tax (Systems)
“m. For the purpose of this notification, the time and place of
despatch and receipt of electronic record or electronic
communication shall have the same meaning as provided in
Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (No.21 of
2000).”
“…
rd
Notification No. 4/2017 dated 3 April, 2017 titled
DGIT(S)/DIT(S)-3/AST/Paperless Assessment
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 124 of 152
Proceedings/96/2015-16 authorized by the Principal Director
General of Income Tax (Systems)
“n) For the purpose of this notification the time and place of
despatch and receipt of electronic record or electronic
communication shall have the same meaning as provided in
Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (No. 21 of
2000). Further, the registered account on the E-filing website
is deemed to be computer resource designated by assessee in
accordance with Section 13 of the Information Technology Act,
2000 (No. 21 of 2000).
…”
Therefore, the contention of Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, learned
counsel for the Department, that Section 13 of the Act of 2000, is not
applicable to the impugned Notices issued through e-mail, is in
contradiction with the aforementioned notifications and the statutory
provision of Section 282 of the Act of 1961.
26.3. Now therefore for determination of the time of despatch of the
impugned Notices issued through e-mail, Section 13 of the Act of
2000 has to be referred to. The relevant portion of Section 13 of the
Act of 2000 is reproduced hereunder:
“13. Time and place of despatch and receipt of electronic
record. —(1) Save as otherwise agreed to between the
originator and the addressee, the despatch of an electronic
record occurs when it enters a computer resource outside the
control of the originator.
(2) ……”
26.4. Thus, on a plain reading of the aforementioned provision, it is
evident that, the “despatch” under Section 13 of the Act of 2000
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 125 of 152
occurs when the electronic record reaches a “computer resource”
outside the control of the “originator”.
26.5. In this regard, it would also be relevant to refer to Section 2(k)
and 2(za) of the Act of 2000, which defines ‘computer resource’ and
‘originator’ respectively, as under :
“…
(k) ― computer resource means computer, computer system,
computer network, data, computer data base or software;
(za) "originator" means a person who sends, generates, stores
or transmits any electronic message; or causes any electronic
message to be sent, generated, stored or transmitted to any
other person but does not include an intermediary;
….”
26.6. Further, Section 11 of the Act of 2000 is also of relevance-
“11. Attribution of electronic records .—An electronic record
shall be attributed to the originator—
(a) if it was sent by the originator himself;
(b) by a person who had the authority to act on behalf of the
originator in respect of that electronic record; or
(c) by an information system programmed by oron behalf of the
originator to operate automatically
...”
26.7. In the present case, the “originator”, as per Section 2(za) of the
Act of 1961, is indubitably the Department. The same is confirmed by
the contents of the Compliance Affidavit. As stated in the Compliance
Affidavit, the JAO is the income tax authority designated by the
Department to generate and sign the Section 148 Notice on behalf of
the Department. The ITBA portal is an information system
programmed by TCS for the Department to operate automatically. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 126 of 152
ITBA portal is the computer resource designated by the Department
for (a) drafting the e-mail to which the Notice is attached; and (b) for
despatching the said e-mail with Notice to the assessee through e-mail;
as well as; (c) for sharing the said Notice on assessee’s ‘My Account’
on the E-filing portal. Hence, the JAO and ITBA perform two
inseparable and complementing functions for the Department, which
together constitute generation of Notice + drafting of the e-mail by the
ITBA e-mail software and its despatch through dedicated ITBA
servers. Thus, whilst the Department is the attributed originator of the
impugned Notices within the meaning of Section 11(c) of the Act of
2000, ITBA portal is the ‘computer resource’ under the control of the
Department.
26.8. In light of the aforesaid findings of this Court, the submissions
made by Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Senior Standing counsel for the
Department, that the JAO and the ITBA are distinct and that the JAO
is the originator and hence not liable for delay in despatch, are
untenable in law and facts.
26.9. Now, in order to determine when does “despatch” i.e. the
transmission of electronic record or the Notices in the present case,
from the Department occur, we may first note the precedence set by
several High Courts in the context of ITBA portal. Under Section 13
of the Act of 2000, various High Courts have concluded that the
despatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters a computer
resource outside the control of the originator i.e. when the ITBA’s e-
mail system is triggered and the e-mail leaves the ITBA servers.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 127 of 152
[Daujee Abhushan (Supra) , Yuvraj v. Income Tax Officer & Ors.,
(Supra) , Advance Infradevelopers (P) Ltd. (Supra) ].
26.10. Qua the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.
Ved Jain and Mr. Kapil Goel had submitted a compilation of recent
judgments passed by the Allahabad High Court following the Daujee
Abhushan (Supra) case. On perusal of the judgments submitted, it is
noted that, the Allahabad Court had in Santosh Krishna HUF (Supra) ,
while dealing with the same issue of despatch, relied on the comments
of the ADIT-5, ITBA O/o DIT (Systems) for determination of the
aforesaid issue. In his comments, the officer forwarded the details as
available with the ITBA Technical Team, the said details included ( i)
Date & Generation of Notice under Section 148 in ITBA System by
AO, (ii)Date & Time of Digital Signing (DSC) in ITBA by AO, (iii)
Date & Time of triggering of e-mail automatedly by ITBA Technical
servers and (iv) Date & Time of delivering of e-mail . The Allahabad
Court following the ratio laid down in Daujee Abhushan
(Supra) , determined the date & time of triggering of e-mail
automatedly by ITBA technical servers as the date and time of
issuance of the notice.
26.11. This Court as well, in the given facts, has examined at what
point does the Notice actually enter a ‘computer resource’ outside the
control of the Department which uses the ITBA portal and its
dedicated servers. In pursuance of the same, a technical breakdown of
the process was called for.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 128 of 152
26.12. The Compliance Affidavit, filed by the Department states that
the ITBA e-mail software system follows the SMTP model to send e-
mails to the assessees.
26.13. Typically, an e-mail service based on SMTP Model utilizes a
chain of servers to transmit e-mail from the sender to the recipient.
Once an e-mail is drafted and the sender presses the ‘send’ button, the
e-mail service i.e. the User Agent (‘UA’) of the sender transmits it to
the Message Transfer Agents ( ‘ MTAs’) i.e. servers of the sender’s e-
mail service. Through a sequence of such MTAs i.e. servers, the e-
mail reaches the destination MTA i.e. server of the recipient’s e-mail
service. In case the recipient is using an intermediary server, it reaches
the intermediary MTA i.e. server of the intermediary. It thereafter,
finally reaches the recipient. In the case on hand, the Department’s e-
mail service is the ITBA e-mail software system and the assessee’s e-
mail service is G-mail, Outlook etc. The ITBA e-mail software uses
dedicated servers for transmitting e-mails and therefore the e-mail is
despatched when the same leaves the ITBA servers for the recipient
assessee’s designated e-mail service servers. A simplified illustration
of the SMTP model showing this process, as confirmed by the counsel
for the petitioners and respondents, is reproduced hereinunder:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 129 of 152
Messaging
Gateway of IT
Department
User Agent
Assessing
Officer
(Sender)
(ITBA MTA
Sent mail’s
queue
1.
(ITBA System)
server)
Destination
Server of
Assessee
Assessee
User Agent
Assessee’s
Mailbox
(MTA server of
(Receiver)
(Eg. Gmail)
assessee)
26.14. For the purpose of this illustration, the double arrows indicate
transmission between computer resources that are of the ITBA e-mail
software system and therefore, within the control of the Department;
and the single arrows indicate transmission between computer
resources that are within the control of or used by the assessee.
26.15.This illustration, as verified by the respondents, attests to the
fact that the MTA i.e. server of the ITBA is a computer resource
belonging to the Department. As established earlier, the Department is
the originator as per Section 11(c) of the Act of 2000, hence, the
despatch occurs when it leaves the last MTA server of the ITBA and
enters a computer resource that the Department does not have control
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 130 of 152
over, i.e. the MTA server of the e-mail service that the assessee is
using.
26.16.The counsel for the petitioners have brought this Court’s
attention to the screenshot of the E-filing portal submitted by the
assessee, Mr. Bhushan Lal Pandita in W.P.(C) 4567/2022. The said
screenshot shows that the E-filing portal, for the notices issued to the
said assessee under Section 142(1), duly publishes the date of
issuance, however, in the case of the impugned Notice issued under
Section 148 of the Act of 1961, the ‘issued on date’ is blank.
26.17.This Court’s attention was also drawn to the screenshot of the
ITBA portal annexed to the Counter filed by the respondent in
W.P.(C) No. 856/2022. The ITBA portal can only be accessed or
viewed by the officers of the Department and not by the assessee. The
screenshot of the ITBA portal reveals that in the “View/Enter
Despatch Details” section the ITBA portal duly records the date of
issue, date of despatch and date of service. It separately records the
time on which the e-mail was sent, the date and time on which the e-
mail was delivered to the assessee, and the date and time on which the
e-mail was shared with the E-filing portal database.
26.18. Further as noted above, Mr. Puneet Rai, learned counsel for the
respondent has during rejoinder arguments admitted that the
information with respect to the date and time of despatch of the
impugned Notices through ITBA e-mail software system is duly
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 131 of 152
available and therefore, capable of determination. This now stands
established by the subsequent notice issued by the JAO in W.P.(C)
5316/2022 wherein the date of issuance through e-mail is duly
recorded. The screenshots supplied by the counsel for the petitioners,
also attests to the said fact, that such information is in fact available
with the Department through the records of the ITBA portal.
26.19. It would also be relevant to note that the time taken by the
st
ITBA e-mail software system on 31 March, 2021, to despatch the e-
mails was not due to any software glitch. The time taken by the
software system was as per the programming of the system, as
admitted in the Compliance Affidavit. The programming to despatch
the Notices in a controlled manner and batch mode was a pre-existing
fact and to the knowledge of the Department. The time taken in
despatch of the e-mail on 31st March, 2021, was therefore as per the
controls set in the ITBA system.
26.20.We are in respectful agreement with the law laid down by the
various High Courts in Daujee Abhushan (Supra), Santosh Krishna
HUF (Supra), Mohan Lal Santwani (Supra), Advance
Infradevelopers (P) Ltd. (Supra) and Yuvraj v. Income Tax Officer
(Supra), that for determining when Notices were issued, the date and
time of when the ITBA e-mail software system is triggered and the
Notices leave the last ITBA server would be considered.
26.21.We therefore answer question no. (II) in affirmative and hold
that despatch as per Section 13 of the Act of 2000, is a sine qua non
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 132 of 152
and happens when the electronic mail message leaves the ITBA’s
servers.
26.22.We answer question no. (III) against the Department and hold
that the time taken by the ITBA’s e-mail software system in triggering
the e-mail and transmitting the said e-mails from the ITBA servers is
attributable to the Department and therefore for the e-mails despatched
st
on 1 April 2021 or thereafter, the Notices are held not to have been
issued on 31st March 2021.
26.23.We also take judicial notice of the fact that the Department from
st
May, 2022, for Notices issued on or after 1 April 2021, has
considered the date and time of despatch of the notices as recorded by
the ITBA portal as the date of issuance and disregarded the date of
generation of notice i.e. 31.03.2021. For notices despatched on or after
st
1 April 2021, the Department, following the Supreme Court’s order
in Ashish Agarwal (Supra) considered the notices as issued under
Section 148A of the Act of 1961. This shows that the Department
itself acknowledges and admits that the date of generation is distinct
from date of issuance and the Department considers the despatch by
ITBA Portal as the date of issue for the purpose of Section 149 of the
Act of 1961.
Finding for Notices falling under category ‘C’
Since the time taken by the ITBA email software system in triggering
the e-mails is attributable to the Department, the AO is directed to
determine the date and time on which the emails were triggered by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 133 of 152
ITBA system server as per the ITBA records and consider the same as
the date of issuance.
st
Illustratively, in W.P.(C) 8994 of 2021 for the Notice dated 31
st
March 2021 and digitally signed on 31 March 2021 the JAO is
directed to determine the date and time of despatch as recorded by
ITBA portal and consider the same as the date of issuance
27. Question No. (IV) Whether the Section 148 Notices sent as an
attachment through e-mails, from the designated e-mail addresses of
the JAOs, which do not bear the respective JAO’s digital signature are
valid under Section 282A the Act of 1961 read with Rule 127A of the
IT Rules? - The Court has answered this question in the affirmative,
in favour of the Department.
27.1. Notices falling under category ‘B’ are admittedly not digitally
signed. They were sent to the assessees via e-mail, with the Notice
documents appended as an attachment, from the designated e-mail
addresses of the respective JAOs. As per the Compliance Affidavit,
the JAO has the option to (a) generate Notice+ affix DSC later or (b)
generate Notice without DSC. In this case either of the two options
may have been chosen, the JAOs may have selected option (a) and did
not affix DSC later which triggered the e-mail system software of the
ITBA 15 days after generation of notice and despatched the unsigned
notice through email or (b) generated Notice without any DSC which
ideally should have triggered the e-mail system software of the ITBA
immediately.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 134 of 152
27.2. It was stated by the learned counsel for the Department that in
view of Section 282A of the Act of 1961 and Rule 127A of the IT
Rules, affixation of DSC is not mandatory. A notice will be
considered authenticated if the name and office of the designated
income-tax authority is printed, stamped or otherwise written. It was
also pleaded that the lack of DSC is merely a defect and would fall
under Section 292B of the Act of 1961.
27.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in response, had relied
upon Instruction No. 1/2018 [F. No. 225/157/2017- ITA II] dated
12.02.2018 and Notification No. 137/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 and
argued that the affixation of DSC is mandatory as per these circulars.
27.4. The aforementioned provisions relied on by the Revenue are
reproduced hereunder:
[ Authentication of notices and other documents.
Section 282A. (1) Where this Act requires a notice or other
document to be issued by any income-tax authority, such notice
or other document shall be [signed and issued in paper form or
communicated in electronic form by that authority in
accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed].
(2) Every notice or other document to be issued, served or given
for the purposes of this Act by any income-tax authority, shall
be deemed to be authenticated if the name and office of a
designated income-tax authority is printed, stamped or
otherwise written thereon.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a designated income-tax
authority shall mean any income-tax authority authorised by the
Board to issue, serve or give such notice or other document
after authentication in the manner as provided in sub-section
(2).]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 135 of 152
(Emphasis Supplied)
[ Authentication of notices and other documents.
Rule 127A. (1) Every notice or other document communicated
in electronic form by an income-tax authority under the Act
shall be deemed to be authenticated,—
(a) in case of electronic mail or electronic mail message
(hereinafter referred to as the e-mail), if the name and office
of such income-tax authority—
(i) is printed on the e-mail body, if the notice or other
document is in the e-mail body itself; or
(ii) is printed on the attachment to the e-mail, if the notice or
other document is in the attachment, and the e-mail is issued
from the designated e-mail address of such income-tax
authority;
(b) in case of an electronic record, if the name and office of
the income-tax authority—
(i) is displayed as a part of the electronic record, if the
notice or other document is contained as text or remark in the
electronic record itself; or
(ii) is printed on the attachment in the electronic record, if
the notice or other document is in the attachment, and such
electronic record is displayed on the designated website.
(2) The Principal Director General of Income-tax (Systems)
or the Director General of Income-tax (Systems) shall specify
the designated e-mail address of the income-tax authority, the
designated website and the procedure, formats and standards
for ensuring authenticity of the communication.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
27.5. The circulars relied on by the counsel for the Petitioners have
been reproduced hereunder:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 136 of 152
Instruction No. 01/2018dated 12.02.2018 titled- ‘Section 143,
Read with Sections 142 & 2(23C), of the Income Tax Act,
1961’- Assessment- Conduct of Assessment Proceedings in
Scrutiny Cases Electronically’
“Sub-section (23C) of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
(Act), applicable from 1-6-2016, provides that "hearing"
includes communication of data and documents through
electronic mode. Accordingly to facilitate conduct of assessment
proceedings electronically, vide letter dated 23-6-2017, in file
of even number, Board had issued a revised format of notice(s)
under section 143(2) of the Act. Para 3 of these notice(s)
provided that assessment proceedings in cases selected for
scrutiny would be conducted electronically in 'E-Proceeding'
facility through assessee's account in E-filing website of
Income-tax Department.
….…
4.2 Use of digital signature by Assessing Officer: All
Departmental orders/communications /notices being issued to
the assessee through the 'e-Proceeding' facility are to be signed
digitally by the Assessing Officer.
….”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Notification No. 137/2021 - S.O. 5187(E) - e-Verification
Scheme, 2021, dated 13.12.2021 .
“.……
3. (1) The scope of the Scheme shall be in respect of:
| (i) | calling for information under section 133 of the Act; |
| (ii) | collecting certain information under section 133B of the |
| Act; | |
| (iii) | calling for information by the prescribed income-tax |
| authority under section 133C of the Act; | |
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 137 of 152
| (iv) | exercise of power to inspect registers of companies under |
|---|---|
| section 134 of the Act; and | |
| (v) | exercise of power of Assessing Officer under section 135 |
| of the Act. | |
….…….
10. Authentication of electronic record.―For the purposes of
this Scheme, an electronic record shall be authenticated by the
–
(i) Commissioner of Income-tax (e-Verification) or the
Prescribed Authority, as the case may be, by affixing its digital
signature;
...”
(Emphasis Supplied)
27.6. On a perusal of the circulars submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, it can be seen that they are not applicable to Section
148 notices. Instruction No. 1/2018 [F. No. 225/157/2017- ITA II]
dated 12.02.2018 pertains specifically to notices issued under Section
143 read with Sections 142 & 2(23C) of the Act of 1961, hence it is
inapplicable to the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act of
1961. Further, Notification No. 137/2021 dated 13.12.2021 deals with
the e-Verification scheme and it applies only to Sections 133, 133B,
134 and 135 of the Act of 1961, hence this is also not applicable to the
present case.
27.7. In this regard, it would be relevant to note that, the Finance Act,
2008, to inter alia implement the e-filing scheme of Returns, for the
purposes of authentication of the electric communication, inserted
Section 282A. The original Section 282A(1) read as - “Where this Act
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 138 of 152
requires a notice or other document to be issued by any income-tax
authority, such notice or other document shall be signed in manuscript
by that authority”.
27.8. This Section 282 A was amended by the Finance Act, 2016 and
the expression “ shall be signed in Manuscript by the authority” was
replaced with “ signed and issued in paper form or communicated in
electronic form by the authority in accordance with such procedure as
may be prescribed”.
27.9. The scope and effect of this amendment was explained in the
Memorandum of Finance Bill, 2016, wherein it is stated that, the
provision is being amended to enable the Income Tax authority to
issue notice and documents under the Act, either in paper form or in
electronic form, in accordance with such procedure as may be
prescribed. The relevant portion of the Memorandum Explaining the
Finance Bill, 2016 is reproduced hereunder:
“Providing legal framework for automation of various
processes and paperless assessment
It is proposed to amend the relevant provisions of the Act so as
to provide adequate legal framework for paperless assessment
in order to enhance efficiency and reduce the burden of
compliance. A series of changes are proposed to achieve this
end.
Sub-section (1) of section 282A provides that where a notice or
other document is required to be issued by any income-tax
authority under the Act, such notice or document should be
signed by that authority in manuscript.
It is proposed to amend sub-section (1) of section 282A so as to
provide that notices and documents required to be issued by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 139 of 152
income-tax authority under the Act shall be issued by such
authority either in paper form or in electronic form in
accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. ….
These amendments will take effect from the 1st day of June,
2016…”
27.10. The proviso to Section 282A and the amendments carried-out
to the said section by the Finance Act, 2016, therefore, gives
recognition to the notices served in the e-form. Sub-section (2) of
Section 282A provides that any notice issued by such authority with
his/her name and his/her office provided, as may or otherwise written
thereon will be deemed to be authenticated and thus validly issued.
27.11. Further, it should be noted that, where the legislature intended
to mandate the affixation of the digital signatures, it has specifically
provided for the same in the provision itself. This is illustrated in
Section 144 B(6)(i)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads as
under :
“Section 144B (6)(i)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961
(i)an electronic record shall be authenticated by—
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(b) the assessment unit or verification unit or technical
unit or review unit, as the case may be, by affixing
digital signature;
…”
27.12. Similarly, there are other circulars issued by the Directorate of
Income Tax (Systems) such as the circular titled “ Miscellaneous-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 140 of 152
Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) Policy-2018-Letter ” [F.No.
th
System/ITBA/Digital Signature/16-17/181] dated 16 February, 2018
recommending the use of the digital signatures certificate, however,
there are no instructions of the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems)
which makes affixation of digital signature on a Section 148 notice
mandatory.
27.13. Along with the provisions relied on by the Revenue it would be
pertinent to note that there is a note under every e-mail (with the
notices appended as an attachment) sent in these proceedings to the
assessees. The note in the end mentions that:
“ Note:
-This communication is computer generated and may not
contain signature
-This communication may be treated as compliant with the
requirements of Income Tax Rules 127 and 127A
-Signed copy may be sent separately if not already digitally
signed.”
27.14. Further as per the Compliance Affidavit, the ITBA portal was
itself developed for the Department in such a way that it makes the
affixation of DSC optional. The notice upon generation may or may
not be affixed with DSC, it would, regardless of whether DSC is
attached or not, be sent through the ITBA e-mail system once it has
been generated.
27.15. From a combined reading of the relevant provisions, the
explanation to the Finance Bill, 2016 and the abovementioned note, it
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 141 of 152
becomes evident that the affixation of DSC in notices issued under
Section 148 of the Act of 1961 has not been made mandatory. As long
as the requirements of Section 282A of the Act of 1961 and Rule
127A of the IT Rules, are followed the notices would be considered to
be authenticated.
Finding for Notices falling under category ‘B’
27.16. In the present case, the Notices were sent from the designated
e-mail ID of the respective JAOs, fulfilling all requirements of
authentication as per the relevant provisions. There was no doubt in
the mind of the assessees that the Notices were sent by the
Department. Therefore, the Notices falling under category ‘B’ would
not be invalid simply because DSCs were not appended to the Notices.
27.17. The JAO is therefore directed to determine time of despatch as
recorded by the ITBA portal for each of these Notices and the date and
time of despatch as determined by the JAO will be considered to be
the date of issuance.
Illustratively, in W.P.(C) No. 1761 of 2022 for the Notice dated
st
31 March 2021, which was not digitally signed and was received on
th
16 April 2021, the JAO is directed to determine the date and time of
despatch as recorded by ITBA portal and consider the same as the date
of issuance.
28. Question (V) : Whether upload of the Section 148 Notice on the
“My Account” of the assessee on the E-filing portal is valid
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 142 of 152
transmission under the Act of 1961? - The Court has answered this in
the negative, against the Department.
28.1. With respect to the Notices falling under the category ‘D’ dated
st st
31 March 2021 and digitally signed on 31 March 2021 it has been
stated that, they were not served on the assessees either by e-mail or
post or by courier services as they were just uploaded on the E-filing
portals of the assessees. It is the case of the petitioners that no real
time alert was received by the assessee and the Department has not
disputed this fact.
28.2. The mode of service of electronic record, i.e., Notices in the
present case is provided under Section 282 of the Act of 1961 and
Rule 127 of the IT Rules. The mode of service of a notice,
electronically, is prescribed in Section 282 of the Act of 1961, it states
that service maybe made by transmitting a copy in the form of
electronic record as per chapter IV of the Act of 2000. It also states
that the CBDT is empowered with the responsibility to make rules
providing addresses for communication through electronic mail or
electronic mail message. The CBDT vide Rule 127(b) of IT Rules
prescribed email addresses, as made available by the assessees, for
communication transmitted electronically.
28.3. Thus, there is no dispute that the transmission of an electronic
notice by placing an authenticated copy in the registered account of
the assessee on the E-filing portal is not specifically prescribed in
Section 282 and Rule 127. Instead, it finds a mention in the CBDT
Notification - No. 4/2017 dated 3.04.2017. The said notification,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 143 of 152
provides that, the notices issued by any income tax authority will be
visible to the assessee after logging in under “E-Proceeding” tab in the
E-filing portal and that an e-mail “may also” be sent to the registered
e-mail address of the assessee. It also mentions that a text message
notifying a real time alert to the assessees “may also” be sent to the
mobile number registered on the E-filing website.
28.4. The “E-Proceedings”, as per the Notification No.4/2017 is
optional. The assessees have to register for the same and can also
choose to opt out of it by notifying the Department.
28.5. It is unclear to us as to why e-mail based communication of
notices is made optional in the Notification No. 4/2017, despite it
being the statutorily prescribed mode of service through electronic
transmission. Further, the ITBA portal itself is programmed in such a
way that it triggers the e-mail software system when a notice is
generated by the JAO and an authenticated copy of the same is
thereafter also uploaded in the E-filing portal of the assessee, hence
the Department cannot contend that it had done away with e-mailing
of notices issued. Most importantly, the Department has been
consistently using this mode of e-mail based communication to
transmit notices and no reason whatsoever has been provided to
explain as to why these Notices were not e-mailed to the select few
assessees falling under category ‘D’ and was only uploaded on the E-
filing portal. It is also unclear as to why the Notices though digitally
signed on 31st March 2021 were never e-mailed to the assessees,
because, as per the Compliance Affidavit, upon affixation of DSC by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 144 of 152
the JAO the e-mail software system of the ITBA portal would be
automatically triggered.
28.6. It should be noted that, when the legislature decided to include
this mode of transmission i.e. placing it on the E-filing
portal/registered account of the assessee, as valid service in the Act of
1961, it duly included the safeguard of a real time alert. For reference,
Section 144 B(6)(ii)(a) of the Act of 1961 statutorily recognizes this
mode of transmission between the Income Tax authority and the
assessee. Section 144 B(6)(ii)(a) reads as under:
“Section 144B (6)(ii)(a)
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(ii) every notice or order or any other electronic
communication shall be delivered to the addressee, being the
assessee, by way of—
placing an authenticated copy thereof in the registered account
of the assessee; or.
…..
and followed by a real time alert”
Finding for Notices falling under category ‘D’
28.7. We hold that, in order for this mode of transmission i.e.
uploading of the Notices in the E-filing portal of the assessees, to be
considered valid service, the Department should have issued a real
time alert as provisioned in the aforementioned Section
144(B)(6)(ii)(a) of the Act of 1961. Since, the prescribed mode of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 145 of 152
service is not followed it is akin to no due despatch of Notices,
therefore it cannot be said that the Notices were validly issued.
28.8. However, since the assessees in the present case did become
aware of the Notices later and the assessment proceedings in their
cases are still pending, we are not inclined to quash these Notices.
28.9. It has come on record that the ITBA records the time and date
when the E-filing portal is accessed by the assessee, so the first date
on which the Notices were accessed by the assessees is duly available.
This date will be considered by the JAOs as the date of issuance of
Notices by the JAOs.
st
Illustratively, in W.P. (C) 13888 of 2021 the Notice dated 31
March 2021 was never served on the assessee, instead the assessee
rd
claims that he became aware of the same on 23 November, 2021
while checking his E-filing portal, the JAO is directed to verify the
date on which the Notice was first viewed by the assessee, and
consider the same as the date of issuance.
Regarding Notices sent to unrelated e-mail addresses
29. In a few cases, which do not fall in the categories ‘A to E’ as
noted above, the Notices dated 31st March, 2021 were issued by the
ITBA e-mail Software system to unrelated e-mail addresses which has
no concern with the petitioner-assessee. In those facts, the Department
cannot be permitted to contend that there was due despatch of Notice.
For constituting ‘due despatch’, notice should be issued to the e-mail
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 146 of 152
addresses duly recognized in Rule 127, Sub rule 2(b) (i) to (iv), which
reads as under :-
“Rule 127, Sub rule 2(b) (i) to (iv)
xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(b) for communications delivered or transmitted
electronically—
(i) e-mail address available in the income-tax return
furnished by the addressee to which the communication relates;
or
(ii) the e-mail address available in the last income-tax return
furnished by the addressee; or
(iii) in the case of addressee being a company, e-mail address
of the company as available on the website of Ministry of
Corporate Affairs; or
(iv) any e-mail address made available by the addressee to
the income-tax authority or any person authorised by such
income-tax authority.”
30. Additionally, it is a settled position of law that the notice under
Section 148 of the Act of 1961 must be served in accordance with the
procedure established by law, to the correct addressee, otherwise the
reassessment proceedings would be invalid in law. [ Commissioner of
Income -Tax (Central) - I v. Chetan Gupta ( Supra )] The issuance of
e-mail attaching electronic notice to an unrelated e-mail address does
not constitute as due despatch and therefore, the Notices cannot be
st
said to have been issued on 31 March, 2021. However, in each of
these matters, since an authenticated copy of the notice was placed on
the registered account of the assessee on the E-filing portal, as that is
how the petitioners learnt about the notices, these notices will be held
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 147 of 152
to have been issued on the date on which the Notices were first viewed
by the assessees on their E-filing portal.
31. For the reasons and principles that we have laid down, we
dispose of these Writ Petitions with the following directions:
31.1. Category ‘A’ : The Notices falling under category ‘A’, which
st
were digitally signed on or after 1 of April, 2021, are held to bear the
st
date on which the said Notices were digitally signed and not 31
March 2021. The said petitions are disposed of with the direction that
the said Notices are to be considered as show-cause-notices under
Section 148A (b) of the Act as per the directions of the apex Court in
the Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment.
31.2. Category ‘B’ : The Notices falling under category ‘B’ which
were sent through the registered e-mail ID of the respective JAOs,
though not digitally signed are held to be valid. The said petitions are
disposed of with the direction to the JAOs to verify and determine the
date and time of its despatch as recorded in the ITBA portal in
accordance with the law laid down in this judgment as the date of
st
issuance. If the date and time of despatch recorded is on or after 1 of
April, 2021, the Notices are to be considered as show-cause-notices
under Section 148A (b) as per the directions of the apex Court in the
Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment.
31.3. Category ‘C’ : The petitions challenging Notices falling under
st
category ‘C’ which were digitally signed on 31 of March 2021, are
disposed of with the direction to the JAOs to verify and determine the
date and time of despatch as recorded in the ITBA portal in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 148 of 152
accordance with the law laid down in this judgment as the date of
st
issuance. If the date and time of despatch recorded is on or after 1 of
April, 2021, the Notices are to be considered as show-cause-notices
under Section 148A (b) as per the directions of the apex Court in the
Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment.
31.4. Category ‘D’: The petitions challenging Notices falling under
category ‘D’ which were only uploaded in the E-filing portal of the
assessees without any real time alert, are disposed of with the direction
to the JAOs to determine the date and time when the assessees viewed
the Notices in the E-filing portal, as recorded in the ITBA portal and
conclude such date as the date of issuance in accordance with the law
laid down in this judgment. If such date of issuance is determined to
st
be on or after 1 of April 2021, the Notices will be construed as issued
under Section 148A (b) of the Act of 1961 as per the Ashish Agarwal
(Supra) judgment.
31.5. Category ‘E’: The petitions challenging Notices falling under
category ‘E’ which were manually despatched, are disposed of with
the direction to the JAOs to determine in accordance with the law laid
down in this judgment, the date and time when the Notices were
delivered to the post office for despatch and consider the same as date
st
of issuance. If the date and time of despatch recorded is on or after 1
of April, 2021, the Notices are to be construed as show-cause-notices
under Section 148A (b) as per the directions of the apex Court in the
Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 149 of 152
31.6. Notices sent to unrelated e-mail addresses: The petitions
challenging Notices which were sent to unrelated e-mail addresses are
disposed of with the direction the JAOs to verify the date on which the
Notice was first viewed by the assessee on the E-filing portal and
consider the same as the date of issuance. If such date of issuance is
st
determined to be on or after 01 April, 2021, the Notices will be
construed as issued under Section 148A (b) of the Act of 1961 as per
judgment in Ashish Agarwal (Supra).
31.7. We may note that in the writ petitions, the petitioners have
raised additional defenses to challenge the impugned Notices. Such
additional defenses have not been considered by this Court and the
petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all such additional defenses as
available in law.
31.8. We are conscious that the time granted by the Supreme Court in
rd
Ashish Agarwal to the Department has since expired on 3 June, 2022
however, the proceedings in the present writ petitions were stayed on
th
24 March, 2022 until the pronouncement of this judgment. Therefore,
we grant the JAOs in the first instance eight (8) weeks time from
today to determine the date of issuance of the Notices as per the law
laid down in this judgment.
31.9. The Notices which in accordance with the law laid down in this
judgment has been verified by the JAOs to have been issued on or
st th
after 01 April 2021 and until 30 June, 2021 shall be deemed to have
been issued under Section 148A of the Act of 1961 as substituted by
the Finance Act, 2021 and construed to be show-cause notices in terms
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 150 of 152
of Section 148A(b) as per the judgment of the apex Court in Ashish
Agarwal (Supra) and the JAOs shall thereafter follow the procedure
set down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment which reads as
follows:
“ 26. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. The impugned common
judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in W.T. No. 524/2021 and other allied tax
appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under : -
| (i) | The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which |
| were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which were the | |
| subject matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts | |
| shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as | |
| substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show- | |
| cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The assessing officer shall, within | |
| thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and | |
| material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assesees can reply to the | |
| show-cause notices within two weeks thereafter; | |
| (ii) | The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior |
| approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed | |
| with as a one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued | |
| under section 148 of the unamended Act from 1-4-2021 till date, including | |
| those which have been quashed by the High Courts. | |
| Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the prior | |
| approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the concerned | |
| Assessing Officers to hold any enquiry, if required; | |
| (iii) | The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of section |
| 148A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; Thereafter after | |
| following the procedure as required under section 148A may issue notice | |
| under section 148 (as substituted); | |
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 151 of 152
| (iv) | All defences which may be available to the assesses including those |
| available under section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentions | |
| which may be available to the concerned assessees and Revenue under the | |
| Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available. | |
……………”
32. With the aforesaid directions, present writ petitions and pending
applications stand disposed of.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MANMOHAN, J
th
27 SEPTEMBER, 2022
j/msh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:28.09.2022
15:16:17
W.P.(C) No. 10/2022 and connected matters Page 152 of 152