W.P.(C)/496/2022 of ASHISH PODDAR Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54(1) & ANR.

$- 1 to 94, 96 to 152, 155-157, 159 to 174 and 177 (Section 148matters)

IN THE HIGH Court OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(C) 10/2022, CM APPL.16/2022 (Interim relief & CMAPPL.13602/2022 (condonation of delay)SUMAN JEET AGARWAL..... PetitionerThroughMr. Satyen Sethi with Mr. ArtaTrana Panda, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD61(1), & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. StandingCounselwithMr.Mr.VipulAgrawal and Mr.Parth Semwal,Junior Standing Counsel for theRevenue.CounselwithMr.Mr.VipulAgrawal and Mr.Parth Semwal,Junior Standing Counsel for theRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 269/2022 & CM APPL.789/2022 (for stay)SABHARWAL APARTMENTS PRIVATESABHARWAL APARTMENTS PRIVATE

LIMITED ..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.SumitLalchandani,Ms.AnanyaKapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE22-2, DELHI & ANR...... Respondents

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms. Mansie Jain,Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 271/2022 & CM APPL.793/2022 (for stay)SHANKAR GROWTH FUND PVT LTDSHANKAR GROWTH FUND PVT LTD

..... PetitionerThroughMr.VenketeshMohanChaurasia, Advocates.Chaurasia, Advocates.

versus

ACIT, CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI AND ORS

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC withMs. Mansie Jain, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 387/2022 & CM APPL.1117/2022 (for stay)SOMNATH VIRMANI..... PetitionerSOMNATH VIRMANI..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMr.SunilKumarMukhi,Advocate.Advocate.

versus

DCIT CIRCLE 13(1) DELHI AND ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Ajit Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel for Revenue.Counsel for Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 440/2022 & CM APPL.1229/2022 (for stay)S N ENTERPRISESS N ENTERPRISES

..... PetitionerThroughMr.SatyenSethi&Mr.ArtaTrana Panda, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. SC withMs. Easha Kadian, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 471/2022 & CM APPL.1327/2022 (for stay)S N ENTERPRISES

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.SatyenSethi&Mr.ArtaTrana Panda, Advs.versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 63(1) & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. SC withMs. Easha Kadian, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 496/2022, CM APPL.1458/2022 (for stay) & CMAPPL.13601/2022 (condonation of delay)ASHISH PODDAR..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Samyak Jain, Adv.versus

INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 54(1) & ANR.

..... RespondentsMr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC withMr.Mr.VipulAgrawalandMr.ParthSemwal,JuniorStandingCounselfortheRevenue.

Through

+W.P.(C) 511/2022 & CM APPL.1484/2022

SANTOSH INFRATECHPRIVATE LIMITED

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22-3, DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents

ThroughMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.Mr.Neeraj,Mr.SahajGarg,Mr.Vedansh Anand, Mr.RudraPaliwalandMr.SanjayPal,Advs. for R-4.Ms.Aakanksha Kaul, Mr.ManekSingh,Mr.AmanSahani,Advocates for UOI.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.Mr.Neeraj,Mr.SahajGarg,Mr.Vedansh Anand, Mr.RudraPaliwalandMr.SanjayPal,Advs. for R-4.Ms.Aakanksha Kaul, Mr.ManekSingh,Mr.AmanSahani,Advocates for UOI.

+W.P.(C) 576/2022 & CM APPL.1636/2022 (for stay)MUKESH KUMAR JAIN

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Purav Middha, Adv.

Versus

PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX & ANR.

..... RespondentsMr.AbhishekMaratha,Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenue.

Through

+W.P.(C) 592/2022 & CM APPL.1678/2022 (for stay)SATISH SINGHAL..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.VenketeshMohanChaurasia, Advocates.

versus

ACIT, CIR 22(2), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

ThroughMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 758/2022 & CM APPL.2160/2022 (for stay)SANTOSH INFRATECHPRIVATE LIMITED..... PetitionerThroughMr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22-3,

DELHI & ORS...... RespondentsThroughMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 965/2022 & CM APPL.2752/2022 (for stay)

SULOCHNA GOEL..... PetitionerThroughMr. Kapil Goel withMr.Sandeep Goel, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE43(1) DELHI AND ANR..... Respondents

..... RespondentsThroughMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 795/2022 & CM APPL.2232/2022 (for stay)RAJ KUMAR GOEL

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Kapil Goel withMr.Sandeep Goel, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE43(1) & ORS..... Respondents

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC withMs.AdeebaMujahid,Jr.SCwithMr. KaranPandey,Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 856/2022 & CM No.2413/2022 (for stay)ANAND GOEL

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Kapil Goel withMr.Sandeep Goel, Advocates.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE43( 1) DELHI AND ORS. & ANR......Respondents

ThroughMr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC withMs.AdeebaMujahid,Jr.SCwithMr. KaranPandey,Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 900/2022 & CM No.2551/2022 (for stay)DEEPAK GOEL

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Kapil Goel withMr.Sandeep Goel, Advocates.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE43 1 DELHI AND ORS & ANR...... Respondents

ThroughMr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC withMs.Mansie Jain, Adv.

+W.P.(C) 1057/2022 & CM APPL.3029/2022 (for stay)ONE POINT REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19-1, DELHI & ORS.

+W.P.(C) 1094/2022 & CM APPL.3117/2022 (for stay)MARK GULATI

versus

ITO WARD 52(1) DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

ThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,

Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 1274/2022 & CM APPL.3729/2022 (for stay)SYNAPE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITEDSYNAPE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.SumitLalchandani,Ms.AnanyaKapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE22-2, DELHI & ANR...... Respondents

..... RespondentsThroughMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 1380/2022 & CM APPL.4001/2022 (for stay)SHALU AGRAWAL..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 59-2, DELHI & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMs.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SCwith Mr.Shaliender Singh, Jr.SC, Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.

+W.P.(C) 1381/2022 & CM APPL.4003/2022 (for stay)

SHALU AGRAWAL

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 59-2,

DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents

ThroughMs.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SCwith Mr.Shaliender Singh, Jr.SC, Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.

+W.P.(C) 1624/2022 & CM APPL.4727/2022 (for stay)

STAR WIRE INDIA LIMITED

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.Arnav Kumar,Mr. RajatMittal, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE22 (2) DELHI & ANR...... Respondents

ThroughMr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Mansie Jain,Adv.

+W.P.(C) 1650/2022 & CM APPL.4777/2022 (for stay)

M/S PERFECT POLYCHEM

PRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Arzoo Raj, Adv.

versus

OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX

OFFICER..... RespondentThroughMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 1756/2022 & CM APPL.5066/2022 (for stay)ONE HEIGHT COLONIZERSPRIVATE LIMITED..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19-1,

DELHI & ORS...... RespondentsThroughMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 1759/2022

STAR WIRE INDIA LIMITED..... PetitionerThroughMr.Arnav Kumar,Mr. RajatMittal, Advs.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE22(2), DELHI & ANR...... Respondents

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms. Mansie Jain,Adv.

+W.P.(C) 1761/2022 & CM APPL.5073/2022 (for stay)BTM EXPORTS LIMITEDBTM EXPORTS LIMITED

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.SumitLalchandani,Ms.AnanyaKapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER,CIRCLE 4-2 DELHI AND ANR

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 1937/2022 & CM APPL.5566/2022 (for stay)KESAR DASS ARORA..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMr.NageshBehlwithMr.Ambrish Dhawan, Advocates.

versus

ITO WARD 62(1) DELHI & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,Jr.StandingCounselforRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 2006/2022 & CM APPL.5758/2022 (for stay), CMAPPL. 13914/2022 (condonation of delay)

PRATYUSH HANDA..... PetitionerThroughDr.RakeshGupta,Mr.SomilAgarwal & Mr.Anshul Mittal,Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54(1),

+W.P.(C) 2016/2022 & CM APPL.5765/2022 (for stay)MEENA CHAWLA..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMr.DeepakSinghThakur,Mr.AnkitKashyap&Mr.Shubham Bhardwaj and Mr.Navjot Singh, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 61(1),DELHI & ANR

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 2087/2022 & CM APPL.5992/2022 (for stay)JASWANT RAI GROVER..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMr.ParasChaudhry&Mr.Dhananjay Grover, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC withMs.MansieJain,AdvforRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 2137/2022 & CM APPL.6149/2022 (for interimrelief), CM APPL. 13913/2022 (for condonation of delay)

PRATYUSH HANDA

Through

..... PetitionerDr.RakeshGupta,Mr.SomilAgarwal & Mr.Anshul Mittal,Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER

WARD 54(1) DELHI & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC withMr.Mr.VipulAgrawalandMr.ParthSemwal,JuniorStandingCounselfortheRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 2238/2022 & CM APPL.6435/2022 (for exemption)ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA HUF..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMs.Mitika Choudhary, Adv.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD

59(2) & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMs.VibhootiMalhotra,Sr.StandingCounselwithMr.Shailendra Singh, Mr.UditSharma,Advocateforrespondent No.1.

Mr. Avnish Singh, SCGC forR-2/UOIwithMr.SauravSharma and Mr. Rahul Ranjan,Advocates.

+W.P.(C) 2241/2022 & CM APPL.6440/2022 (for stay)SHIVA ASPHALTIC PRODUCTS

PRIVATE LIMITED..... PetitionerThroughMs.Mitika Choudhary, Adv.versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER

WARD 23(1) & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.Mr. Jitesh VikramSrivastavaSPC with Mr. Prajesh VikramSrivastava, Advocate for UOI.Mr.Vikrant N.Goyal, AdvocatewithMr.ShikharSardana,Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 2265/2022 & CM APPL.6519/2022 (for stay)URBAN PUNJAB..... PetitionerThroughMs.Mitika Choudhary, Adv.

versusASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-17 & ORS...... RespondentsThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. SC withMr.Zehra Khan, Jr. SC and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Adv.Mr.NawalKishoreJhaAdvSPCwithMs.KalpanaJha,Adv. for R-2.

+W.P.(C) 2286/2022 & CM APPL.6573/2022 (for stay)

MAHENDER KUMAR KASHYAP..... PetitionerThroughMs.Mitika Choudhary, Adv.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 67(1), & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.Ms.Saroj Bidawat, Sr. PanelCounsel for UOI.

+W.P.(C) 2290/2022 & CM APPL.6582/2022 (for stay)SLG GLOBAL TEX PRIVATELIMITED..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMs.Mitika Choudhary, Adv.

versus

ASSISSTANTCIRCLE 22 (2), & ORS.

COMMISSIONEROFINCOMETAX,..... RespondentsThroughMr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC withMs.MansieJain,Adv.forRevenue.Mr. Prakash Kumar, CentralGovt. Senior Counsel for R-2.

+W.P.(C) 2339/2022

SWIFT REALTECH PRIVATE

LIMITED

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.Ajay Wadhwa, Mr. Snehil

Jha, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER

WARD 22(3) DELHI & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC withMs.AdeebaMujahid,Jr.SCwithMr. KaranPandey,Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 2357/2022 & CM APPL.6789/2022 (for stay) & CMAPPL. 19557/2022 (for stay)

PUNEET GHAI

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.SumitLalchandani,Ms.AnanyaKapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 59-3, DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

ThroughMs.VibhootiMalhotra,Sr.StandingCounselwithMr.ShailendraSingh,Jr.Standing Counsel & Mr.UditSharma, Adv.

+W.P.(C) 2378/2022 & CM APPL.6834/2022 (for stay)GAUTAM CHAND JAIN..... PetitionerThroughMs.Mitika Choudhary, Adv.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE58 (1) & ORS...... Respondents

ThroughMr. Ajit Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel.

Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocatefor UOI.

+W.P.(C) 2441/2022 & CM APPL.7047/2022 (for stay)

M/S SAGAR POLYCHEM PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Arzoo Raj, Adv.versus

OFFICE OF THE INCOMETAX OFFICER

..... Respondent

ThroughMr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Mansie Jain,Adv.

+W.P.(C) 2442/2022 & CM APPL.7049/2022 (for stay)

M/S SAGAR POLYCHEMPRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Arzoo Raj, Adv.

versus

OFFICE OF THE INCOMETAX OFFICER

..... RespondentThroughMr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Mansie Jain,Adv.

+W.P.(C) 2452/2022 & CM APPL.7066/2022 (for stay)MR. VIJAY KUMAR GOEL..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Arzoo Raj, Adv.

versus

Versus

Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 2570/2022 & CM APPL.7345/2022 (for stay)EVOLVE BRANDSPRIVATE LIMITED..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMr.Piyush Kaushik, Adv.

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1

& ANR.

..... Respondents

ThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 2669/2022 & CM No.7649/2022 (for stay)T S AND SONS HUF..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Gaurav Jain, Ms. AkshitaGoel and Mr. Shubham Gupta,Advocate.Mr. P. Roychaudhuri with Mr.Gagan Gupta, Advocates.

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE43(1), DELHI..... Respondent

..... RespondentThroughMr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,

Jr.StandingCounselforRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 2705/2022 & CM APPL.7720/2022 (for stay)M/S PERFECT POLYCHEMPRIVATE LIMITED..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerMr. Arzoo Raj, Adv.

Through:

versus

OFFICE OF THE INCOMETAX OFFICER

..... RespondentThrough :Mr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 2764/2022 & CM APPL.7927/2022 (for stay)

MS. MANJU KUMARIPREMSAGAR PRASAD

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Arzoo Raj, Adv.

versus

OFFICE OF THE INCOMETAX OFFICER

..... RespondentThroughMs.VibhootiMalhotra,Sr.StandingCounselwithMr.ShailendraSingh,Jr.Standing Counsel & Mr.UditSharma, Adv.

+W.P.(C) 2835/2022 & CM APPL.8162/2022 (for stay)ANKIT JAIN..... Petitioner

versus

PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX, & ANR...... RespondentsThroughMr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel.Ms.Archana Gaur, Advocate forUOI.

+W.P.(C) 2853/2022 & CM APPL.8220/2022 (for stay)

SANJU AGARWAL..... PetitionerThroughMr.Gagan Gupta and Mr. P.Roychaudhuri, Adv.

versus

ITO, WARD 54 (1), DELHI & ANR...... RespondentsThroughMr.SanjayKumar,Sr.SC,Ms.Easha Kadian, Jr.StandingCounsel.

+W.P.(C) 2861/2022 & CM APPL.8267/2022 (for stay)

P.K. MARKETING COMPANY..... PetitionerThroughMr.Anuj Aggarwal, ASG forGNCTDMs.Ayushi Bansal &Mr.Sanyam Suri, Advs.

versus

PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, &ANR...... Respondents

ThroughMs.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr.SC.with Mr. Shaliendra Singh andMr. Udit Sharma, Advocates.Ms.Manisha Agrawal Narain,CGSC with Mr. Aditya SinghDeshwal Advocate for UOI.with Mr. Shaliendra Singh andMr. Udit Sharma, Advocates.Ms.Manisha Agrawal Narain,CGSC with Mr. Aditya SinghDeshwal Advocate for UOI.

+W.P.(C) 2956/2022 & CM APPL.8579/2022 (for stay)

SAGARI LEATHERS PVT. LTD...... PetitionerThroughMr.SandeepChilana,andMs.ShambhaviSinha,Mr.PriyojeetChatterjee,Mr.ShekharSharmaandMr.AbdullahTanveer,Advocates.versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHIAND ANR...... Respondents

ThroughMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 3038/2022 & CM APPL.8822/2022 (for stay)M/S SANT SANDESH MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONPVT. LTD...... Petitioner

ThroughMr.Rishab Singla & Mr. PawanShree Agrawal, Advs.Mr.V.P.GuptaandMr.Anunav Kumar, Advocates.

versusINCOME TAX OFFICER

WARD 22(3) DELHI AND ANR

..... RespondentsThroughMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate

+W.P.(C) 3070/2022 & CM APPL.8881/2022 (for stay)CONCEPT INFRADEVELOPERSPVT LTD..... Petitioner

Through

Mr.RajeevSharma&Mr.AdityaSharmawithMr.Shubham Bhardwaj, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, OFFICEOF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -6 (1),DELHI AND ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,Jr. Standing Counsel.

+W.P.(C) 3074/2022 & CM APPL.8887/2022 (for stay)

ABHISHEK AGGARWAL

..... PetitionerMr. P. Roychaudhuri with Mr.Gagan Gupta, Advocates.

Through

versus

ITO WARD 54 (1), DELHI & ANR. ..... RespondentsThroughMr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,Jr. Standing Counsel.

+W.P.(C) 3080/2022 & CM APPL.8923/2022 (for stay)

DEEPAK AGGARWAL..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. P. Roychaudhuri with Mr.Gagan Gupta, Advocates.Gagan Gupta, Advocates.

versus

ITO WARD 54(1), DELHI & ANR...... Respondents

ThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr.StandingCounselandMr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr.StandingCounselandMr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 3081/2022 & CM APPL.8927/2022 (for stay)DEEPAK AGGARWAL..... PetitionerDEEPAK AGGARWAL..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.P.RoychaudhuriwithMr.Gagan Gupta, Advocates.Mr.Gagan Gupta, Advocates.

versus

ITO WARD 54 1, DELHI & ANR...... Respondents

ThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 3290/2022 & CM APPL.9559/2022 (for stay)RAJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL..... PetitionerRAJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.Sourav Vig & Mr.TusharGupta, Advs.Gupta, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICERCIRCLE 58 (1) & ORS.

..... Respondents

ThroughMr.AbhishekMaratha,Sr.Standing Counsel.Mr.AwadheshKumarSingh,Adv. for R-2 & R-3.

60+W.P.(C) 3291/2022 & CM APPL.9561/2022 (for stay)ALOK KUMAR AGGARWAL..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMr.Sourav Vig & Mr.TusharGupta, Advs.versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER

CIRCLE 58 (1) & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMs.VibhootiMalhotra,Sr.StandingCounselwithMr.ShailendraSingh,Jr.Standing Counsel & Mr.UditSharma, Adv.Mr.AwadheshKumarSingh,Adv. for R-2 & R-3.

+W.P.(C) 3438/2022 & CM APPL.10035/2022STRATAGEM PORTFOLIO

(P) LTD..... PetitionerThroughMr.Gautam Jain & Mr.PiyushKumar Kamal, Advs.

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE22(2) DELHI & ANR...... Respondents

ThroughMr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Mansie Jain,Adv.

+W.P.(C) 3503/2022 & CM APPL. 10328/2022BHOLENATH FOODS LIMITED......PetitionerThroughMr Rishabh Jain, Adv.

versus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(2)NEW DELHI......Respondent

ThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.Counsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 3525/2022

UMESH KUMAR GUPTA AS LEGAL HEIR OF DECEASEDSAROJ BALA GUPTA......PetitionerSAROJ BALA GUPTA......Petitioner

ThroughMr. SushilK Tekriwal andDr.Mamta Tekriwal, Advs.Dr.Mamta Tekriwal, Advs.versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER

......Respondent

ThroughMr Ajit Sharma, Sr StandingCounsel.

+W.P.(C) 3595/2022UMESH KUMAR GUPTA

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.SushilK.Tekriwal,Advocate withDr.MamtaTekriwal, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER..... RespondentThroughMr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 3628/2022 & CM APPL. 10749/2022

SANDEEP JAIN..... PetitionerThroughMr.Arnav Kumar,Mr. RajatMittal, Advs.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE22 (2), DELHI & ANR...... RespondentsThroughMr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Sr.SC with Mr. Tushar Gupta,Jr.SC,Mr.UtkarshTiwari,Advs.

+W.P.(C) 3630/2022 & CM APPL. 10759/2022SANDEEP JAIN..... PetitionerThroughMr.Arnav Kumar,Mr. RajatMittal, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE 22 2 DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents

ThroughMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate

+W.P.(C) 3692/2022 & CM APPL.10960/2022MANSI AGGARWAL

..... PetitionersThroughMr. Abhishek Garg, Advocatewith Mr. Aayush Kuchhal, Mr.Yash Gaiha, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 62(1) & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Sanjay Kumar & Ms. EashaKadian, Advocates.

+W.P.(C) 3699/2022 & CM APPL.10974/2022RAKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL..... PetitionerThroughMr. P. Roychaudhuri with Mr.Gagan Gupta, Advocates.

versus

ACIT, CIRCLE - 59(1),DELHI & ANR.

..... RespondentsMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate

Through

+W.P.(C) 3708/2022 & CM APPL.11015/2022

PARAG GUPTA (SINCE DECEASED),THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES- SH. PREM CHAND GUPTA

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Abhishek Garg, Advocatewith Mr. Aayush Kuchhal, Mr.Yash Gaiha, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 62(1) & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 3758/2022 & CM APPL.11187/2022SHIV KUMAR GOEL

..... PetitionerThroughMr. T.M. Shivakumar, Adv.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CIRCLE 22(2),

DELHI & ANR.

.....RespondentsThroughMr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC withMs.MansieJain,AdvforRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 3774/2022 & CM APPL.11216/2022 (for interimrelief)PREM CHAND GUPTA..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMr.AbhishekGarg,Mr.Aayush Kuchhal and Mr. YashGaiha, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE 58(1), DELHI & ANR...... RespondentsThroughMr.AbhishekMaratha,Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 3780/2022 & CM APPL.11228/2022SHIV KUMAR GOEL

.... PetitionerThroughMr. T.M. Shivakumar, Adv.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CIRCLE 22(2),DELHI & ANR.

.....RespondentsThroughMr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC withMs.MansieJain,AdvforRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 3804/2022 & CM APPL.11281/2022SHANTI LAL PORWAL

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Nitin Gulati, Ms ReenaGulati, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF

INCOME TAX CIRCLE 59(1),DELHI & ANR.

.....RespondentsThroughMs. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SCwith Mr. Shailendra Singh, Jr.SC and Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.

+W.P.(C) 3808/2022 & CM APPL.11288/2022SHIV KUMAR GOEL

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr. T.M. Shivakumar, Adv.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CIRCLE 22(2),DELHI & ANR.

.....RespondentsMr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC withMs.MansieJain,Advfor

Through

Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 3817/2022 & CM APPL.11311/2022INDRA PORWAL

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Nitin Gulati, Ms ReenaGulati, Advs.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OFINCOME TAX CIRCLE 59(1),

DELHI & ANR......RespondentsThroughMs. Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SCwith Mr. Shailendra Singh, Jr.SC and Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.

+W.P.(C) 3831/2022 & CM APPL.11371/2022DAVINDER BAJAJ

..... PetitionerThroughMr.Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX CIRCLE 67-1,DELHI & ORS.

.....RespondentsThroughMr. Puneet Rai, Sr. SC withMs.Adeeba Mujahid, Jr. SC.Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv. forUOI.

+W.P.(C) 3876/2022 & CM APPL.11537/2022DEEPAK CHOUDHARY

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Nitin Gulati, Ms ReenaGulati, Advs.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE 60(1),

DELHI & ANR...... RespondentsThroughMr.VibhootiMalhotra,Sr.StandingCounselwithMr.ShailendraSingh,Mr.UditSharma, Advocates.

+W.P.(C) 3942/2022 with CM APPL. 11747/2022UMA GOEL

..... PetitionerThroughMr. T.M. Shivakumar, Adv.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents

ThroughMr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC withMs.MansieJain,AdvforRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 3951/2022 with CM APPL. 11773/2022UMA GOEL..... PetitionerThroughMr. T.M. Shivakumar, Adv.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CIRCLE 22(2),

DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents

ThroughMr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC withMs.MansieJain,AdvforRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 4020/2022 & C.M.APPL.12027/2022

SAHIL HOME LOOMTEXPRIVATE LIMITED

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.SunilKumarMukhi,Advocate.

versus

ITO, WARD-22(1) DELHI & ANR.

..... RespondentsMr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC withMs.AdeebaMujahid,Jr.SCwithMr. KaranPandey,Advocate.

Through

+W.P.(C) 4045/2022

ANIL KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr.DineshMohan

Sinha,

Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICERAND ANR.

Through

..... RespondentsMr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 4174/2022MEGHA JAIN

Through

.....PetitionerMr.DineshMohanSinha,Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

..... Respondents

ThroughMr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 4177/2022, C.M.APPLs.12521-22/2022

SHYAMPREM ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPIL(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPIL

FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.)

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Nitin Gulati, Ms ReenaGulati, Advs.Gulati, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

TAX CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through

Mr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC with

Ms.AdeebaMujahid,Jr.SCwithMr. KaranPandey,withMr. KaranPandey,

Advocate.

Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv. forUOI.UOI.

+W.P.(C) 4187/2022 & CM APPL. 12540/2022SHANKER LAL SINGHANIA

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Kapil Goel withMr.Sandeep Goel, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX CIRCLE 59 (1)DELHI AND ORS

..... Respondents

ThroughMr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate

+W.P.(C) 4260/2022 & CM APPL. 12668/2022VEEKAY GENERAL INDUSTRIES

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate.

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX -20,NEW DELHI & ANR.

.....RespondentsMr.AbhishekMaratha,Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenue.

Through

+W.P.(C) 4266/2022N M INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Through

..... Petitioner

Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.SumitLalchandani,Ms.Ananya

versus

Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5,DELHI & ANR...... RespondentsThroughMr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC withMs.MansieJain,AdvforRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 4408/2022 & CM APPLs.13142-43/2022BRIJ BHUSHAN GUPTA

...... PetitionerThroughMr. Brij Bhushan Gupta, Mr.SalilKapoor,Mr.SanatKapoor,Mr.SahilKumar,Advocates.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE59-1, DELHI & ANR...... Respondents

..... RespondentsThroughMs.VibhootiMalhotra,Sr.StandingCounselwithMr.Shailendera Singh and Mr. UditSharma, Advs.

+W.P.(C) 4459/2022 & CM APPLs.13299-13300/2022BRIJ BHUSHAN GUPTA..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Brij Bhushan Gupta, Mr.SalilKapoor,Mr.SanatKapoor,Mr.SahilKumar,Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE59-1, DELHI & ANR......Respondents

.....RespondentsThroughMs.VibhootiMalhotra,Sr.StandingCounselwithMr.Shailendera Singh and Mr. UditSharma, Advs.StandingCounselwithMr.Shailendera Singh and Mr. UditSharma, Advs.

+W.P.(C) 4507/2022 & CM APPLs.13487-88/2022PAWAN CHAUDHARYPAWAN CHAUDHARY

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr.VenketeshMohan

Chaurasia, Advocates.

versus

ITO, WARD 35(5), DELHI & ANR...... Respondents

ThroughMr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocates.Easha Kadian, Advocates.

+W.P.(C) 4567/2022 & C.M.Nos.13706-13707/2022BHUSHAN LAL PANDITA..... PetitionerBHUSHAN LAL PANDITA..... Petitioner

Through

Mr.JaspalSinghSethiwithMr.Gaurav Gupta, Advocates.Mr.Gaurav Gupta, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 67(1) NEW DELHI

..... Respondent

Through

Mr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 4584/2022 & C.M.Nos.13747/2022, 13824/2022

LALASHERSINGHMEMORIALJEEVANVIGYANTRUST SOCIETY..... PetitionerThroughMr.MuditBansalandMr.RameshKumarJain,Advocates.

versus

THE DCIT CIRCLEEXEMPT 1 (1) DELHI

..... RespondentThroughMr.AbhishekMaratha,Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 4692/2022 & C.M.Nos.14047-14048/2022LOTUS HERBALS PVT LTD

.... PetitionerThroughMs. Kavita Jha, Mr. VaibhavKulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.Anant Mann, Mr. HimanshuAggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC withMr.Mr.VipulAgrawalandMr.ParthSemwal,JuniorStandingCounselfortheRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 4695/2022, CM APPL. 14053/2022, CM APPL.14263/2022BRIJ BHUSHAN GUPTA..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Brij Bhushan Gupta, Mr.SalilKapoor,Mr.SanatKapoor,Mr.SahilKumar,Advocates.

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX,

CIRCLE 59-1, DELHI & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMs.VibhootiMalhotra,Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenuewith Mr.Shailendra Singh, JrStanding Counsel & Mr.UditSharma, Adv. for respondentNo.1.

+W.P.(C) 4697/2022, CM APPL. 14061/2022

MOHIT BAJAJ

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Kushank Sindhu, Ms.Gazal Ghai, Mr. Anmol Singh,Mr, Baibhav and Mr. AdityaSain, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

..... RespondentsMr. Mohit Sharma, Sr. Panelcounsel for UOI.Mr.AbhishekMaratha,Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenue.

Through

+W.P.(C) 4777/2022, C.M.APPL.14308/2022VINAY KUMAR DHINGRA

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.MuditBansalandMr.RameshKumarJain,Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 63 (1),

DELHI

..... RespondentMr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. EashaKadian, Advocates.

Through

+W.P.(C) 4791/2022, C.M.APPL.14335/2022AJANTA POLYMERSPRIVATE LIMITED

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Gaurav Jain, Ms. AkshitaGoel and Mr. Shubham Gupta,Advocate.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)DELHI AND ANR

.....RespondentsThroughMr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC withMr.Mr.VipulAgrawalandMr.ParthSemwal,JuniorStandingCounselfortheRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 4798/2022ASHISH JAIN

Through

..... PetitionerMr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha,Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER

AND ANR

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 4801/2022

RAJIV GUPTA HUF

.....Petitioner

ThroughMr.Ajay Wadhwa, Mr. SnehilJha, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 54 1 & ORS.

Through

..... Respondents

Mr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 4808/2022, C.M.APPL.14372/2022MR. NEERAJ AGGARWAL

..... PetitionerMr. S. Krishnan, Advocate.

Through

versus

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMs.VibhootiMalhotra,Sr.StandingCounselwithMr.ShailendraSingh,&Mr.Udit Sharma, Advs.

+W.P.(C) 4818/2022, C.M.APPLs.14395-96/2022VINOD KUMAR GUPTA HUF

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX,

CIRCLE - 43-1 & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Puneet Rai with Ms.AdeebaMujahid and Mr. Karan Pandey,Advocates.

+W.P.(C) 4811/2022, C.M.APPL.14380/2022

M/S. CIGMA EVENTS P LTD.....PetitionerThroughMr. S. Krishnan, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate.Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocatefor UOI.

+W.P.(C) 4879/2022, C.M.APPL.14616/2022BC EXPORTS

.....PetitionerThroughDr.RakeshGupta,Mr.SomilAgarwal & Mr.Anshul Mittal,Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CIRCLE 58(1),DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

ThroughMs.VibhootiMalhotra,Advocate with Mr. ShailendraSingh and Mr. Udit Sharma,Advocates.

+W.P.(C) 4892/2022, C.M.APPL.14640/2022NITIN SAXENA

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.SumitLalchandani,Ms.AnanyaKapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX,

CIRCLE 49-1 & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.AbhishekMaratha,Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 4919/2022, CM APPLs. 14682/2022, 17829/2022,26875/2022 & 28266/2022CLASSIC FINCAP PRIVATE LIMITED.....Petitioner

.....PetitionerThrough:Ms.PremLataBansal,Sr.Advocate with Mr. DivyanshuAgarwal, Advocate.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

..... RespondentsThrough:KunalSharma,Sr.StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 4924/2022 & C.M.APPL.14688/2022JAGMOHAN GARG (ERSTWHILEDIRECTOR OF COMPETENT REALESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.)..... PetitionerThroughMr. Vijay K Singh, Advocates.JAGMOHAN GARG (ERSTWHILEDIRECTOR OF COMPETENT REALESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.)..... PetitionerThroughMr. Vijay K Singh, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondents

ThroughMs. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate

for UOI.Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC withMr.Mr.VipulAgrawalandMr.ParthSewwal,JuniorStandingCounselfortheRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 4946/2022, C.M.APPL.14724/2022KARNIK RAJAT

..... Petitioner

ThroughMs. Kavita Jha, Mr. VaibhavKulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.Anant Mann, Mr. HimanshuAggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 4956/2022, C.M.APPL.14735/2022

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA HUF

..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 43-1 & ORS...... RespondentsThroughMr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC withMs.AdeebaMujahid,Jr.SCwithMr. KaranPandey,Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 5018/2022 & C.M.APPL.14953/2022BALDEV KRISHNA SHARMABALDEV KRISHNA SHARMA

..... Petitioner

ThroughMs. Smriti Sahay, Mr. AlokKumar and Mr. M. Goswami,Advocates.Kumar and Mr. M. Goswami,Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Krishan Kumar Sharma, Sr.Panel Counsel for R-1/UOI.Mr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocatefor Revenue.Panel Counsel for R-1/UOI.Mr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocatefor Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 5024/2022,C.M.APPL.14974/2022

UMA SHANKER

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Piyush Kaushik, Advocate

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX -20NEW DELHI & ANR.

.....RespondentsMr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.

Through

+W.P.(C) 5027/2022, C.M.APPL.14976/2022RENU MITTAL

..... PetitionerThroughMs. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CIRCLE 58(1)DELHI AND ANR.

.....RespondentsThroughMs.VibhootiMalhotra,Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenuewith Mr.Shailendra Singh, JrStanding Counsel & Mr.UditSharma, Adv.

+W.P.(C) 5064/2022, C.M.APPL.15046/2022NITIN SAXENA

..... PetitionerMr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.SumitLalchandani,Ms.AnanyaKapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

Through

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 49-1 & ANR...... RespondentsThroughMr.AbhishekMaratha,Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 5119/2022 & CM APPL.15178/2022

SUN PARKS PRIVATE LIMITED

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Saurabh Dev Karan SinghandMs.KanikaJain,Advocates.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CIRCLE (22) 2, DELHI

..... RespondentThroughMr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC withMs.AdeebaMujahid,Jr.SCwithMr. KaranPandey,Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 5138/2022 & CM APPL.15285/2022SANDEEP SETHI

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Bhuvnesh Satija,Advocate.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAXCIRCLE 28(1), DELHI AND ANR.

.... RespondentsMr. Ajit Sharma, Advocate.

Through

+W.P.(C) 5143/2022, CM APPL. 15293/2022SMT. NAVNEET KAUR KOCHHARSMT. NAVNEET KAUR KOCHHAR

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.RajeevSharma&Mr.AdityaSharmawithMr.Shubham Bhardwaj, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OFTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54(1)DELHI & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC withMr.Mr.VipulAgrawalandMr.ParthSemwal,JuniorStandingCounselfortheRevenue.

+W.P.(C)5145/2022,CMAPPL.15297/2022,CMAPPL.17326-27/2022

APOLLO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED..... PetitionerThroughMr. Manu K. Giri, Advocate.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE1 -1 DELHI AND ORS.....

Respondents

ThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C)5155/2022&CMAPPL.15321/2022,CMAPPL.15322/2022SRKK ASSOCIATES

PRIVATE LIMITED..... PetitionerThroughMr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishraandMr.AnimeshTripathi, Advocates.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 22-2, DELHI & ORS.....Respondents

ThroughMr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC withMs.AdeebaMujahid,Jr.SCwithMr. KaranPandey,Advocate.Mr.N.K.Aggarwal, Advocatefor UOI.

+W.P.(C) 5157/2022, CM APPL. 15324/2022DEEPAK GUPTA

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Sharad Agarwal andMs.Monika Ghai, Advocates.versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 59 (8),DELHI AND ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMs. Vibhooti Malhotra,

Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 5170/2022, CM APPL. 15348/2022MANISH KAPOOR

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.ManujSabharwal,Advocates.versus

INCOME-TAX OFFICER,

WARD 63(1) & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,Jr. Standing Counsel forRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 5178/2022, CM APPL. 15360/2022

NAVNEET KAUR KOCHHAR

..... PetitionerThroughMr.RajeevSharma&Mr.AdityaSharmawithMr.Shubham Bhardwaj, Advs.versus

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OFTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54(1)DELHI & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC withMr.Mr.VipulAgrawalandMr.ParthSemwal,JuniorStandingCounselfortheRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 5179/2022 & CM APPL.15365/2022M/S CARISSA INVESTMENTPVT. LTD.

..... PetitionerThroughMr.Bhavnesh Saini, Mr. NeerajSaini and Mr. Karan Chawla,Advocates.

versus

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 4(2) DELHI & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,Jr. Standing Counsel forRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 5191/2022 & CM APPL.15412-13/2022MD OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE 14, DELHI & ORS...... RespondentsThroughMr.Sanjay Kumar, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Easha Kadian,Jr. Standing Counsel forRevenue.Mr. Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Mukesh Kr. Tiwari, Advocatesfor UOI.

+W.P.(C) 5209/2022, CM APPL. 15459/2022SATISH BANSAL

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16-1,DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through

Mr.AbhishekMaratha,

Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr.OmPrakashwithMr. GhanshaymSingh,Mr.Mr.Devvrat Yadav, Advocatesfor respondent No.4.Mr. GhanshaymSingh,Mr.Mr.Devvrat Yadav, Advocatesfor respondent No.4.

+W.P.(C) 5233/2022, CM APPL. 15640/2022M/S. SHRI NIWAS PULSES (P) LTD

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. S. Krishnan, Advocate.versusversus

INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS.

..... Respondents

ThroughMr.SanjayKumarandMs.Easha Kadian, Advocates.Ms.Easha Kadian, Advocates.

+W.P.(C) 5246/2022, CM APPL. 15670/2022 and 19038/2022RAM KALI..... PetitionerRAM KALI..... Petitioner

ThroughMs.DivyaandMr.RucheshSinha, Advocates.Sinha, Advocates.

versus

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE43(1), DELHI & ANR...... Respondents

ThroughMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocatefor Revenue.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocatefor Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 5247/2022, CM APPL. 15675/2022 & 19025/2022RENU MITTAL..... PetitionerRENU MITTAL..... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMs.DivyaandMr.RucheshSinha, Advocates.

Versus

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE43(1), DELHI & ANR......

Respondents

Through

Mr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocatefor Revenue.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocatefor Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 5262/2022, CM APPL. 15716/2022 , 17894-95/2022STRATEGIC DEVELOPERS (P) LTD...... PetitionerSTRATEGIC DEVELOPERS (P) LTD...... Petitioner

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Gautam Jain and Mr.PiysuhKumar Kamal, Advocates.Kumar Kamal, Advocates.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE22(2) DELHI & ANR...... Respondents

Through

Mr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocatefor Revenue.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocatefor Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 5265/2022, CM APPL. 15724/2022SHRI. ANOOP KUMARCHHAWCHHARIASHRI. ANOOP KUMARCHHAWCHHARIA

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. S. Krishnan, Advocate.versus

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CIRCLE -58 (1),DELHI AND ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMs. Vibhooti Malhtora,Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 5273/2022, CM APPL. 15742/2022

RAMESH CHANDER KALRA..... PetitionerThroughMr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27,DELHI & ORS...... RespondentsThroughMr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenue.Mr. Gigi. C. George Advocatefor R-4/UOI

+W.P.(C) 5277/2022, CM APPL. 15749/2022

POPULATION SERVICESINTERNATIONAL

..... PetitionerThroughMs. Kavita Jha, Mr. VaibhavKulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.Anant Mann, Mr. HimanshuAggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,Advocates.

Mr.AdityaVohraandMr.Abhishek Singhvi, Advocates.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMs. Vibhooti Malhtora,Advocate.

130+W.P.(C) 5281/2022, CM APPL. 15756/2022AJAY JAIN.....PetitionerThroughMr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CIRCLE-59-1,DELHI & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Ajit Sharma, Mr. L. S.Hasan, Advocates.Mr. Ayush Kaushik, Advocatesfor UOI.

+W.P.(C) 5289/2022, CM APPL. 15773/2022NISHA GOEL

..... PetitionerThroughMr.KanishkAgarwal,Ms.Nidhi Bhuwania and Ms.Dhriti Gupta, Advocates.versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 54(1), DELHI AND ANR..... RespondentsThroughMr. Kunal Sharma, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 5297/2022, CM APPL. 15800/2022, 17858/2022KUBER PLANTERS LIMITED..... PetitionerThrough:Ms. Ekashara Mahajan and Mr.Adiraj Bali, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX & ANR...... RespondentsThrough:Ms.VibhootiMalhotra,Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 5299/2022, CM APPL. 15801/2022VISHWANATH GUPTA..... PetitionerThroughMr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 60(5),DELHI & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Ajit Sharma, Mr. L. S.Hasan, AdvocatesMr.VedPrakashTripathi,Advocate for respondent No.5.

+W.P.(C) 5300/2022, CM APPL. 15805/2022 & CM APPL.19134/2022

NARESH KUMAR (HUF)

..... PetitionerThroughMs.DivyaandMr.RucheshSinha, Advocates.versus

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX CIRCLE 43(1),DELHI & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC withMs.AdeebaMujahid,Jr.SCwithMr. KaranPandey,Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 5308/2022, CM APPL. 15821/2022MS.PRITIE THAPAR

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Advocate.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Ajit Sharma, Mr. L. S.Hasan, Advocates.

+W.P.(C)5316/2022andCMAPPL.Nos.15843/2022,

17827/2022

KUBER PLANTERS LIMITED

..... PetitionerThroughMs.EkasharaMahajan,Mr.Adiraj Bali, Advocates.versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

Through

..... RespondentsMs. Vibhooti Malhotra,Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 5319/2022, CM APPL. 15836/2022

POPULATION SERVICESINTERNATIONAL

..... Petitioner

Through

Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. VaibhavKulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.Anant Mann, Mr. HimanshuAggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,Advocates.Mr.AdityaVohraandMr.Abhishek Singhvi, Advocates.

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & ORS.

..... RespondentsMs. Vibhooti Malhotra,Advocate.

Through

+W.P.(C) 5407/2022, C.M.APPL.16182-83/2022ANIL KUMAR

..... PetitionerMs. Kavita Jha, Mr. VaibhavKulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.Anant Mann, Mr. HimanshuAggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,Advocates.

Through

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54(1) DELHI AND ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 5408/2022 & C.M.APPL.16184-85/2022CADENCE REAL ESTATESPRIVATE LIMITED

..... PetitionerThroughMs. Kavita Jha, Mr. VaibhavKulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.Anant Mann, Mr. HimanshuAggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTAND ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC withMr.Mr.VipulAgrawalandMr.ParthSemwal,JuniorStandingCounselfortheRevenue.

140+W.P.(C) 6401/2022 and CM APPL. 19382/2022

ANKIT GAUR

..... PetitionerThrough:Mr.Risabh Nangia, Advs.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 60(5) NEW DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through:Mr. Ajit Sharma, Adv.

+W.P.(C) 13764/2021ATHEROL BUILDERS ANDDEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

..... PetitionerMs. Kavita Jha, Mr. VaibhavKulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.Anant Mann, Mr. HimanshuAggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,Advocates.

Through

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX & ANR.

..... RespondentsMr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC withMr.Mr.VipulAgrawalandMr.ParthSemwal,JuniorStandingCounselfortheRevenue.

Through

+W.P.(C) 7944/2022 & CM APPL.24194/2022BIRD WORLDWIDE FLIGHTSERVICES INDIA PVT LIMTED

..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Mayank Nagi and Mr.Pulkit, Advocates.Versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 4(2) DELHI & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMs.VibhootiMalhotra,Sr.StandingCounselforRevenuewithMr.Shailendra Singh, JrStandingCounsel&Mr.UditSharma, Adv. forrespondent No.1.

+W.P.(C) 7900/2021 & CM APPL.24560/2021

REKHA GUPTA

..... PetitionerThrough:Mr. Ishan Garg, Advocate

versus

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMs.VibhootiMalhotra,Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenuewith Mr.Shailendra Singh, JrStanding Counsel & Mr.UditSharma, Adv. for respondentNo.1.

144+W.P.(C) 8994/2021SHARAD GARG

..... PetitionerThroughMr.VenketeshMohanChaurasia, Advocates.versus

ITO, WARD 63(1), DELHI & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC withMr.Mr.VipulAgrawalandMr.ParthSemwal,JuniorStandingCounselfortheRevenue.

145+W.P.(C) 9427/2021UJJWAL ARORA

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.SumitLalchandani,Ms.AnanyaKapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 59-1 DELHI

..... RespondentThroughMs.VibhootiMalhotra,Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenuewith Mr.Shailendra Singh, JrStanding Counsel & Mr.UditSharma, Adv. for respondentNo.1.

+W.P.(C) 9659/2021PANKAJ VERMA

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 69-1 & ORS.

..... RespondentsThrough:Mr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocatefor Revenue.Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Sr.Panel Counsel with Mr.KautilyaBirat, Mr. Pratyashish Mohanty,Advocates, for R-4.

+W.P.(C) 11010/2021 & CM 33944/2021ATS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.HarshitBatra,Mr.RiteshBajaj, Advs.versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX & ORS.

.....RespondentsMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

Through

+W.P.(C) 12926/2021& CMs 40710-11/2021SHIV KUMAR GUPTA

..... PetitionerMr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.SumitLalchandani,Ms.AnanyaKapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

Throughversus

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 58-7 & ANR.

Through

..... Respondents

Mr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. SC.

+W.P.(C) 13021/2021 & CMs 41064-65/2021AVNI NATH

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr.SunilKumarMukhi,Advocate.versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 54(1),

NEW DELHI

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 13384/2021 & CM APPLs.42168-169/2021ABHISHEK ARORA..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.SumitLalchandani,Ms.AnanyaKapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, WARD 59-1,DELHI & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. Standingcounsel.

+W.P.(C) 13746/2021 & CM APPL.43420/2021

ALANA BUILDERS ANDDEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

..... PetitionerThroughMs. Kavita Jha, Mr. VaibhavKulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.Anant Mann, Mr. HimanshuAggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX & ANR...... RespondentsThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 13757/2021 & CM APPL.43442/2021

ATHEROL BUILDERS ANDDEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

..... PetitionerThroughMs. Kavita Jha, Mr. VaibhavKulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.Anant Mann, Mr. HimanshuAggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr. SC withMr.Mr.VipulAgrawalandMr.ParthSemwal,JuniorStandingCounselfortheRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 13760/2021 & CM APPL.43449/2021SHIKHI ESTATES

PRIVATE LIMITED

..... PetitionerThroughMs. Kavita Jha, Mr. VaibhavKulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.Anant Mann, Mr. Himanshu

versus

Aggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,Advocates.

INCOME TAX

OFFICER & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC withMs.MansieJain,AdvforRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 13814/2021& CM APPL. 43599/2021RSND PROJECTSPRIVATE LIMITED..... Petitioner

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. T.M. Shivakumar, Adv.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3)

& ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.SunilAgarwal,Sr.Standing Counsel, Mr. TusharGupta, Jr. Standing Counsel andMr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocatefor Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 13825/2021 & CM APPL. 43626/2021

SHIKHI ESTATESPRIVATE LIMITED

..... PetitionerThroughMs. Kavita Jha, Mr. VaibhavKulkarni, Mr. Udit Naresh, Mr.Anant Mann, Mr. HimanshuAggarwal and Mr. Aditeya Bali,Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC withMs.MansieJain,AdvforRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 13888/2021 & CM APPL. 43850/2021

NIDHI GUPTA

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

TAX & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 13901/2021 & CM APPL. 43877/2021MINAKSHI AGGARWAL

..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Piyush Kumar Kamal andMs.MonikaAggarwal,Advocates.Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.Sumit

versus

Lalchandani,Ms.AnanyaKapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 60-4 & ANR.

Through

..... RespondentsMs.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SCwith Mr.Shaliender Singh, Jr.SC, Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.

+W.P.(C) 13907/2021 & CM APPL. 43889/2021SHIV KUMAR GUPTA –HUF

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.SumitLalchandani,Ms.AnanyaKapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 58-7 & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel for Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 14049/2021 & CM APPL. 44358/2021DEVI DASS HUF

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.SumitLalchandani,Ms.Ananya

versus

Kapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WARD 59-8 & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel for Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 14053/2021 & CM APPL. 44366/2021MUKESH ARORAMUKESH ARORA

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.SumitLalchandani,Ms.AnanyaKapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER,CIRCLE 59-1 & ANR...... RespondentsThroughMs.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SCwith Mr.Shaliender Singh, Jr.SC, Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.

161+W.P.(C) 14100/2021 & CM APPL.44486/2021MUKESH ARORA –HUF..... PetitionerThroughMr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. SanatKapoor,Mr.SumitLalchandani,Ms.AnanyaKapoor, Ms. Soumya Singh,Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates.

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 59-8 & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMs.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SCwith Mr.Shaliender Singh, Jr.SC, Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv.

+W.P.(C) 14229/2021 & CM APPL.44883/2021SANJIV MAHESHWARI

.....Petitioner

ThroughMr.Ashish Middha, Adv.versus

PR. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Kunal Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel with Ms.Zehra Khan,Jr. Standing Counsel and Mr.Shray Nargotra, Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 14266/2021 & CM APPL.44953/2021REENA SINGH

..... PetitionerThroughMs.DivyaandMr.RucheshSinha, Advs.

versus

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC withMs.AdeebaMujahid,Jr.SCwithMr. KaranPandey,Advocate.Ms. Archana Gaur, Adv. forUOI.Mr.Rishabh Sahu, Central Govt.Sr. Counsel for R-3.

+W.P.(C) 14337/2021SUHARSH ARORA

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Ved Kumar Jain, Ms. RichaMishra, Advocates.Mishra, Advocates.

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 48-1 & ORS.

..... RespondentsMr.AbhishekMaratha,Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenue.Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, Advocatefor respondent No.4.Standing Counsel for Revenue.Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, Advocatefor respondent No.4.

Through

+W.P.(C) 14533/2021 & CM APPL.45713/2021RAVI KUMAR GUPTA

..... PetitionerThroughMr. Aditya Dewan, Mr. SahilChandra, Advocates.versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS..... Respondents

ThroughMr.Puneet Rai, Sr. SC withMs.AdeebaMujahid,Jr.SCwithMr. KaranPandey,Advocate.Ms.AdeebaMujahid,Jr.SCwithMr. KaranPandey,Advocate.

+W.P.(C) 14610/2021 & CM APPL.46026/2021

SANGITA GARG

..... PetitionerThroughMs. Vaishali Gupta, Advocatewith Mr. Anubhav Gupta andMr. Vikas Poonia, Advocates.

versus

OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER,

WARD 59(3), DELHI & ORS.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel for Revenue.Mr.Narendra Kumar Srivastava,Advocate for R-4.

+W.P.(C) 14711/2021 & CM APPL.46325/2021SUSHMA GOEL

..... Petitioner

ThroughMs. Vaishali Gupta, Advocatewith Mr. Anubhav Gupta andMr. Vikas Poonia, Advocates.

Versus

OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 59(6), DELHI

& ORS.

..... RespondentsMs.Vibhooti Malhotra, Sr. SCwith Mr.Shaliender Singh, Jr.SC, Mr.Udit Sharma, Adv. forRevenue.

Through

Mr. Avnish Singh, SCGC forUOI with Mr. Saurav SharmaandMr.RahulRanjan,Advocates.

+W.P.(C) 14712/2021 & CM APPL.46327/2021 (for interimrelief)

UPENDRA GULATI

..... PetitionerThroughMs. Vaishali Gupta, Advocatewith Mr. Anubhav Gupta andMr. Vikas Poonia, Advocates.

versus

OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 28(1),DELHI & ORS...... Respondents

ThroughMr.Ajit Sharma, Sr. StandingCounsel for Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 15074/2021 & CM APPL.47528/2021

SANJAY KUMAR..... PetitionerThroughMr.Sagar Rohatgi, Advocate.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & ANR.

..... RespondentsThroughMr.AbhishekMaratha,Sr.Standing Counsel for Revenue.

+W.P.(C) 15090/2021 & CM APPL.47574/2021 (for stay)

POOJASMIT INVESTMENTS AND TRADING PRIVATELIMITED..... PetitionerLIMITED..... Petitioner

ThroughMr. Salil Kapoor, Ms. AnanyaKapoor, Mr. S.K. Gambhir andMr. C.S. Anand, Advocates.versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 20-1 DELHI & ANR..... RespondentsThroughMr.Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC withMs.MansieJain,AdvforRevenue.

+W.P.(C) 2814/2022 & CM APPL. 8121/2022

Reserved on: 15[th]July, 2022Date of Decision: 27[th]September,2022

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U M N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

CM APPL. 13602/2022 in W.P. (C) No. 10/2022 (Condonation ofdelay)

CM APPL. 13601/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 496/2022 (Condonation ofdelay)

CM APPL. 13914/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 2006/2022(Condonation ofdelay)

CM APPL. 13913/2022 in W.P.(C) No. 2137/2022 (Condonation ofdelay)

For the reasons, stated in these applications, the delay in filingthe counter-affidavits is condoned and the counter-affidavits filed byRevenue 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)

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 beencalled upon to decide the validity of the Notices issued under Section148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act of 1961’), as it stood prior toits amendment on 01[st]April, 2021, by the Finance Act, 2021.

Brief Facts

1.1.The Sections 147, 148, 149 and 151 of the Act of 1961 wereamended vide the Finance Act of 2021, with effect from 1[st]April,2021.

1.2.As per the unamended Section 149(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, thereassessment proceedings could be initiated within 4 years from theend of the relevant Assessment Years (‘AYs’).

1.3.As per the unamended Section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961, thereassessment proceedings could be initiated within 6 years from theend of the relevant AY if the income chargeable to tax that hasescaped 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, thereassessment proceedings could be initiated within 16 years from theend of the relevant AY if income in relation to any foreign assetchargeable to taxess escaped assessment.

1.5.However, with effect from 1st April, 2021, under the amendedSection 149(1)(a) of the Act of 1961, reassessment could be initiated

within 3 years from the end of the relevant AY. Thus, under amendedSection 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 priorassessment years were barred.

1.6.For initiation of reassessment proceedings on 1[st]April, 2021,for any AY prior to AY 2018-19, the pre-conditions contained in theamended Section 149(1)(b) of the Act of 1961 were required to befulfilled by the Income Tax Department (‘Department’).

1.7.Further, before issuance of notice under Section 148 of theAct of 1961 after 1[st]April, 2021, the Department had to comply withthe mandatory procedure prescribed under the newly inserted Section148A of the Act of 1961.

1.8.Since there was regime change with respect to law oflimitation coming into effect from 1[st]April, 2021, which curtailed thetime limit for re-opening of assessment from 6 years to 3 years, theDepartment with view to avail the limitation prescribed under theunamended Section 149 of the Act of 1961, generated reassessmentNotices 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 despatchthrough electronic mail (‘e-mail’) by the Jurisdictional AssessingOfficer (‘JAO’) using the Income Tax Business Application (‘ITBA’)software developed by the Tata Consultancy Services (‘TCS’) for theDepartment.

1.10. The facts on record evidence that though the impugned Noticeswere generated by JAO using the ITBA software on 31[st]March, 2021,the same were despatched through the ITBA’s e-mail system, usingthe ITBA servers on or after 1[st]April, 2021; and/or despatched byJAO through normal post on or after 1st April, 2021.

1.11. In view of the admitted fact as regards the date of despatchbeing 1[st]April, 2021, or thereafter, the Department has sought tocontend that for the purpose of determining the date on which theimpugned Notices have been ‘issued’ within the meaning of Section149 of the Act of 1961, the date of despatch by ITBA software systemthrough e-mail or speed post is not relevant and it is only the date ofgeneration of the impugned Notices on the ITBA portal, which mustbe considered.

1.12. The petitioners have agreed that the date of receipt of theimpugned Notice by the assessee is not the criterion for determiningwhether the impugned Notices have been ‘issued’ within the time limitprescribed under Section 149 of the Act of 1961.

Categories identified

1.13. The impugned Notices as categorized by the Counsel for thepetitioners, Ms. Kavita Jha and recorded by this Court vide its orderdated 24[th]March, 2022, are reproduced hereinunder:

1. Category A: is in respect of writ petitions where Notice isdated 31[st]March, 2021 or before but digitally signed on or after

1[st]April, 2021, however sent and received on or after 1[st]April,2021.

2. Category B: is in respect of writ petitions where Notice isdated 31[st]March, 2021 or before, digitally not signed, howeversent and received on or after 1[st]April, 2021.

3. Category C: is in respect of writ petitions where Notice isdated 31[st]March, 2021 or before, digitally signed on or before31[st]March, 2021, however sent and received on or after 1[st]April, 2021.

4. Category D: is in respect of writ petitions where Notice isdated 31[st]March, 2021 or before, digitally signed on or before31[st]March, 2021, no service either by e-mail or by post or anyother modeand assessee came to know later on through Portalor receipt of subsequent notice under Section 142(1).

5. Category E: is in respect of writ petitions where Notice isdated 31[st]March, 2021 or before, manually signed, no serviceby e-mailbut despatched through speed post on or after 1[st]April, 2021.…”

1.14. Since the deadline for passing the assessment orders in most ofthese cases was 31[st]March, 2022, the proceedings pursuant to theimpugned reassessment Notices were stayed till further orders by thisCourt vide the aforesaid order dated 24[th]March 2022.

2.Therefore, the controversy which has arisen for consideration iswhether these impugned Notices were issued on or before 31[st]March,2021 or thereafter. If this Court holds that the impugned Notices werevalidly issued under the unamended Section 149 of the Act of 1961 on

or before 31[st]March 2021, then, the re-assessment proceedings wouldbe governed by the unamended provisions of Section 147, 148, 149and 151 of the Act of 1961 as they stood before 1[st]April, 2021.However, if this Court concludes that the impugned Notices wereissued on or after 01[st]April, 2021, then, the new regime of Section147, 148, 148A, 149 and 151 of the Act of 1961, shall govern these re-assessment proceedings and the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of India v. Ashish Agarwal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 543, wouldapply. In that case, the impugned Notices though issued under Section148 of the unamended Act of 1961, would be considered to be issuedunder Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961, as amended by the FinanceAct, 2021.

3.There is no dispute that since the impugned Notices pertain toA.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, they weregetting time barred on 31[st]March, 2021, as per the newly amendedSection 149(a) of the Act of 1961 and were therefore, as per lawrequired to be ‘issued’ on or before 31[st]March, 2021.

4.It is an admitted fact in all these petitions that though theimpugned Notices were generated on the ITBA portal on 31[st]March,2021, however, the same have been despatched only on or after 01[st]April 2021; and therefore the issue arising for determination beforethis Court is whether the impugned Notices will be governed by there-assessment regime which came into effect on 01[st]April, 2021, orthe re-assessment regime which was in existence as on 31[st]March,2021.

Submissions of the Department vide Compliance Affidavit dated 30[th]May, 2022

5.In accordance with the directions of this Court, on behalf of theDepartment, Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan, the Assessing Officer and Mr.Saurav Sharma, Joint Commissioner of the ITBA were present inCourt on 23rd May, 2022, to clarify the circumstances relating to thedespatch of the impugned Notices through e-mail on 1st April, 2022,and thereafter.

6.A compliance affidavit dated 30[th]May, 2022 (‘ComplianceAffidavit’), was filed by the Department in this regard to set out thetechnical procedure available to the JAO on the ITBA portal forissuance of Notices under Section 148 of the Act of 1961 on 31stMarch, 2021.

7.The Compliance Affidavit states as follows:

7.1.The JAO uses the ITBA software to generate Notice underSection 148 of the Act of 1961, and thereafter, the ITBA softwaretriggers an e-mail, with the Notice appended as an attachment, usingthe 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 148of the Act of 1961, the JAO has the following two options on theITBA 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, Notice is generated on the ITBA portal in an un-

editable PDF format (i.e., as PDF file). The JAO thereafter has up to15 days to affix his/her Digital Signature Certificate (‘DSC’) on theNotice 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 withthe DSC appended Notice enclosed as an attachment to the e-mail.The ITBA software system will also share the DSC appended Noticewith the assessee’s E-filing portal’s software database (which is aseparate portal developed by the Department for the assessee).

7.5.In the event the JAO omits to affix his/her DSC to the Noticewithin 15 days from the date of its generation, the said Notice (withoutDSC) will be automatically triggered by the ITBA software systemthrough e-mail and it will also be shared on the E-filing portal’sdatabase.

7.6.In case the JAO opts for option (b) i.e., to generate the Noticewithout DSC, the Notice is generated in an un-editable PDF format onthe ITBA portal. Upon generation itself, the ITBA software’s e-mailsystem is triggered and an e-mail containing the said Notice (withoutDSC) is sent to the e-mail address of the assessee and also uploadedon the E-filing portal, which is accessible by the assessee for his/herviewing.

7.7.The e-mail will be sent by the ITBA e-mail system to theassessee only if the assessee’s valid e-mail ID is present in the ITBAsystem.

7.8.On 31[st]March, 2021, the average time taken for triggering thee-mail process by the ITBA software system was approximately 6hours. The said delay was due to the high number of documents beinggenerated on the said date. Therefore, substantial time was taken bythe ITBA servers for triggering the e-mails and consequent receipt ofe-mails by the assessee.

7.9.The ITBA software’s e-mail triggering system is programmedin such manner that e-mails are triggered in batch mode, in acontrolled manner i.e., at the rate of 400 documents per 2 minutes soas to avoid getting the ITBA system’s IPs blacklisted by e-mailservice providers like Yahoo or Google.

7.10. The ITBA software’s process of triggering of e-mail andsending of Notices to the E-filing portal’s data base is an automatedfunction.

7.11. The e-mails are triggered by the ITBA software using theSimple Mail Transfer Protocol (‘SMTP’) from back end, which reachthe messaging gateway of the ITBA system. Upon reaching themessaging gateway, message ID is created by the messaging gatewayand the same gets updated in the ‘e-mail table’. Thereafter, dependingon the availability of the destination domain server i.e. assessee’sserver and the user account, e-mails are either immediately deliveredto the assessee or re-attempted in cases of failure.

7.12. The JAO of his/her own has no control over the Noticedocument generated on the ITBA portal, once it has been sogenerated. After the notice document is generated on the ITBA portal,

the JAO cannot alter, amend, or delete the said Notice documentthrough the ITBA system.

7.13. The ITBA portal allows the JAO to cancel draft of the noticeunder Section 148 of the Act of 1961, which is step prior to itsgeneration. Once notice has been generated on the ITBA softwareportal, 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 ofthe respondents.

9.Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Senior Standing counsel for theDepartment has submitted as follows:

9.1.After the generation of Notice by the JAO, unique DocumentIdentification Number (‘DIN’) is assigned by the ITBA to the saidNotice and once DIN has been assigned, the JAO loses completecontrol over the Notice so generated by him/her i.e., the JAO canneither amend, alter nor cancel the said Notice. The JAO loses “locuspoenitentiae” i.e. opportunity to withdraw the Notice once this DINhas been assigned. Therefore, upon generation of DIN on the ITBAportal, the Notice should be considered as ‘issued’ and the despatch ofthe notice through e-mail or any other mode should not be pre-requisite for determining whether the Notice has been issued to theassessee. [The Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M.M. Rubber& Co. Tamil Nadu, [1992 Supp (1) SCC 471]

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. Asper Section 13 of the Act of 2000, despatch occurs when, the noticegenerated by the JAO (originator) enters the ITBA system (computerresource) which is outside his/her control. Therefore, once the Noticeis generated by the JAO the time taken by the ITBA’s e-mail softwaresystem to trigger the e-mail process should not be attributable to theJAO. [Qualimax Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., 2010SCC OnLine Del 2189, Para 32].

9.3.With respect to Notices dated 31st March, 2021, which beardigital signature of subsequent date and form part of category ‘A’,the note appearing as footer of the impugned Notices to the effectthat, “if digitally signed, the date of signature may be taken as date ofdocument” has no statutory backing. There are no Central Board ofDirect Taxes (‘CBDT’) instructions or circulars which have led to thesaid note appearing in the communications issued through the ITBAportal. Therefore, the Department is not bound by that note. Affixationof DSC is neither mandatory nor requirement for issuance of aNotice by the JAO. Hence, the date of Notice should be reckoned as31st March 2021 for category ‘A’ as well.

9.4.The impugned Notices forming part of category ‘C’, upongeneration, bears the date as 31[st]March, 2021, therefore, there can beno dispute that the Notices were in fact generated by JAO on 31[st]March, 2021, and not thereafter. Further, there does not exist any

possibility of ante-dating the said Notices once DIN Number hasbeen assigned.

9.5.On perusal of the Compliance Affidavit, it can be seen that thetime lag in the despatch of Notice by the ITBA portal was on accountof the programming of the ITBA software itself and in no mannerattributable to the JAO. Therefore, the Notices which were digitallysigned on 31st March, 2021, though despatched by the ITBA softwareon or after 01st April, 2021, should be declared to have been issued on31[st]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 issuancealways 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 andthe ITBA portal are distinct, thus the time taken by the ITBA portalfor 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, ifa document duly mentions the name and designation of the officer, itwould be considered authenticated. Further, as per Rule 127A of theIncome Tax Rules, 1962 (‘IT Rules’), every communication inelectronic form by an Income Tax Officer shall be deemed to beauthenticated if the name and office of the officer are mentioned in thee-mail body or printed on the attachment to the e-mail. Therefore,

there is no mandatory requirement of affixing DSC and the Noticesfalling under category ‘B’, which have been issued without theaffixation of DSC are also valid.

9.9.The Court should adopt purposive interpretation to themachinery provisions to give effect to the legislative intent to taxrather than destroy the same. [CIT v. Calcutta Knitwears, 2014 (6)SCC 444].

10.Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing counsel for theDepartment submitted as follows:

10.1. The date of issue of the impugned Notices is disputed questionof fact in the instant petitions and since the same have been filed at thestage of ‘Notice for reopening of assessment’, the Court should not beinclined to examine these factual aspects. [Rajesh SunderdasVaswaniv.DeputyCommissionerofIncomeTax,(2017)88taxmann.com 602 (Gujarat) at para 9 and 13].

10.2. The service of Notice upon the assessee is not condition fordetermining if notice has been validly issued under Section 149 ofthe Act of 1961. [R.K. Upadhyaya Vs. Shanabhai P. Patel, (1987) 3SCC 96] The phrase ‘forward’ as it appears in Clause (iv) ofExplanation 1 to Section 153 is not to be interpreted in the samemanner as words ‘issue’ or ‘serve’, the act of issue of Notice thereforeprecedes the act of despatch. [Sanjay Engineering (Supra)]

10.3. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case ofMalavika Enterprises Vs. CBDT, (2022) 137 taxmann.com 398(Madras) had, on facts, recorded that the e-mail attaching the Section

148 notice had been despatched on 31.03.2021 and thus, validly issuedunder Section 149 of the Act of 1961.

11.Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, learned Senior Standing counsel for theDepartment submitted as follows:

11.1. As per the ITBA Assessment User Manual (Version 1.9), themoment the JAO exercises the option to ‘digitally sign’, the DSCappended notice is sent by e-mail to assessee and simultaneouslyshared 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 timeof digital signature as 31[st]March, 2021, the same are liable to bedismissed.

11.2. Section 13 of the Act of 2000 would not apply to the impugnedNotices as the Section begins with “Save as otherwise agreed betweenthe originator and the addressee”. This denotes that there must be anagreement in place between the tax collector and the tax payer forapplication of Section 13 of the Act of 2000, and since there is no suchagreement, the same is not applicable in the instant petitions.

12.The submissions of the Department for each category aresummarized as under:

12.1. Category ‘A’: The date of affixation of DSC on the Notices on1[st]April, 2021, or thereafter will not determine the date of the Notice.The Notice is deemed to be issued on 31[st]March, 2021, when it was

allotted DIN by the ITBA. The despatch of Notices on 01[st]April,2021, or thereafter is also not determinative for deciding when theNotices were ‘issued’.

12.2. Category ‘B’: The affixation of DSC on the Notices is notmandatory. The Notices were generated on 31[st]March, 2021, with aDIN and the name & office of the Income Tax Officer was dulyprinted thereon. Further, the e-mail appending the Notice wastriggered within 15 days as the JAO had selected option (a) on theITBA Screen but omitted to affix his/her signature within 15 days,thus, causing delay in despatch of e-mail. In these facts, theDepartment contends that the Notices were issued on 31st March,2021. It is not disputed by the Department that the Notices weredespatched on or after 01[st]April, 2021, but the said fact as per theDepartment is not determinative of the expression ‘shall be issued’ inSection 149 of the Act of 1961.

12.3. Category ‘C’:The Notice with DIN was generated on 31[st]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 noticewas outside his control. The delay in triggering of the e-mail by theITBA software system was because of the high volume of Noticesgenerated on 31[st]March, 2021. The e-mails containing the impugnedNotices were despatched on 01[st]April, 2021, or thereafter, to theassessee, however that is not determinative of the expression ‘shall beissued’ in Section 149 of the Act of 1961.

12.4. Category ‘D’: The Department has not placed any material onrecord nor submitted oral arguments for explaining the non-issuanceof e-mail or service through speed-post or any other mode. Theassessees came to know later on through E-filing portal on receipt ofsubsequent notice under Section 142(1) of the Act of 1961.

12.5. Category ‘E’: The impugned Notices are dated 31[st]March,2021, and bear DIN of the said date. The subsequent despatch on 01[st]April, 2021, or thereafter, through speed post does not affect thevalidity of the Notice. The Notice is ‘issued’ validly for the purpose ofSection 149 of the Act of 1961.

13.The learned counsel for the respondents have not disputed thatthe despatch of the impugned Notices in categories ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘E’were admittedly done on or after 01[st]April, 2021. Their solecontention was that upon generation of Notice on 31[st]March, 2021 thetest of ‘issued’ for the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961 wassatisfied. They have not addressed the Court on facts pertaining tocategory‘D’notices.Aspertheassessees,therewasnocommunication 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, learnedcounsel have submitted arguments on behalf of the petitioners.

15.The petitioners’ counsel have rebutted the explanations andsubmissions made by the respondent. The Counsel for all thepetitioner parties placed reliance on the judgment of DaujeeAbhushanBhandarVs.UOI,[2022]136taxmann.com246(Allahabad) to contend that the said judgment directly covers the issueunder consideration.

16.Ms. Kavita Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted asfollows:

16.1. The expression ‘issued’ has been judicially interpreted by theCourts as framing of the order and taking necessary action to despatchthe same. Therefore, mere generation of Notice on the ITBA portaldoes not satisfy the test of ‘issue’ without proving that the same hasbeen despatched within the time barring period. [Delhi DevelopmentAuthority v. H.C. Khurana, (1993) 3 SCC 196]

16.2. Even though the service of notice is not relevant, however, fordetermining if notice has been validly issued, the notice should besent 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 notcontain the expression ‘Assessing Officer’. Therefore, no distinctioncan be made between the ‘Assessing Officer’ and ‘ITBA portal’ underSection 149 of the Act of 1961. The time taken by the ITBA softwarefor triggering of e-mail is attributable to AO and since admittedly the

impugned Notices were despatched on 01[st]April, 2021, or thereafter,the same are time barred.

16.4. The E-verification Scheme, 2021 issued by CBDT videNotification bearing No. 137/2021 dated 13[th]December, 2021 in paras6, 9 and 11, states that affixation of DSC in E-proceedings is amandatory requirement. In the absence of DSC, the impugned Noticeswould be null and void.

16.5. The circular bearing No. 19/2019 dated 14[th]August, 2019,issued by CBDT mentions that the allotment of DIN to the Notice isa mandatory requirement prescribed by the aforesaid circular only tomaintain the audit trail of the documents issued by the Department andto provide transparency in the process. The allotment of DIN to thenotice does not amount to issuance as sought to be contended by theDepartment in these proceedings.

16.6. Since the impugned Notices have been issued in an electronicform, the provisions of Section 2(1)(t), Section 3, Section 13, Section66A of the Act of 2000 would be relevant as the same governelectronic communication. In the present case, as per Section 13 of theAct of 2000, the ITBA system should be considered as the‘originator’. Therefore, the despatch of electronic record would occuronly when the same enters computer resource outside the control ofthe ITBA and only after such despatch would the notice be deemed tohave been issued.

16.7. The E-filing portal as viewed by the assessee clearly highlightsthe fact that there is system in place for duly displaying the date on

which the Notice is ‘issued’ by the JAO. However, for the impugnedNotices under consideration, the date of issuance is conspicuously notmentioned on any of the assessee’s accounts on the E-filing portal.Illustratively the screen shot for PAN AAFCA 9047H is extractedbelow:

Notice/ Communication Reference ID: 100036566022

16.8. conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of Act of 1961 andAct of 2000, leads to the inescapable conclusion that for the Notice tobe validly ‘issued’ it has to be digitally signed and should be out of thecontrol 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 signingthe same is not sufficient for satisfying the test of ‘issued’ and it isonly when the Notice has been despatched in terms of Section 13 of

the Act of 2000, would the same be declared to be issued. In thisregard reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Courtin UOI vs. G.S. Chatha Rice Mills, (2021) 2 SCC 209, wherein theSupreme Court has held that notification would be in effect from thetime and date on which it was uploaded on the e-gazette and not thedate mentioned in the notification.

17.The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ved Jain, submittedas under:

17.1. The details of the date and time of despatch of the impugnedNotices by the ITBA servers are available with the Respondent. In thecase of Santosh Krishna HUF v. UOI, bearing Writ Tax No. 211 of2022 and Mohan Lal Santwani Vs. UOI, bearing Writ Tax No. 569 of2022, the Department provided the Allahabad High Court with thedetails of: (1) generation of notice; (2) digital signing by JAO, and (3)triggering of e-mail to the assessee. Further, the Allahabad High Courtin Mohan Lal Santwani (Supra) has directed that the date and time oftriggering e-mail should be reflected in the E-filing portal accessed byassessee. 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 ITBAservers before 31[st]March, 2021, the respondents have readilyfurnished the said information in their counter affidavits as isevidenced by the counter filed in W.P. (C) No. 3038 of 2022, titled as

Sant Sandesh Media and Communication P. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward22(3). However, in the petitions where the e-mail was triggered on

01st April, 2021, or thereafter, the said information has been withheldand an untenable submission has been made by the respondents, thatthe notice is deemed to have been issued on mere generation of thenotice on the ITBA Screen.

17.3. The contention of the respondent, that the Notice is deemed tobe ‘issued’ upon generation on the ITBA Screen is contradicted by theDepartment’s own admission that upon generation the JAO has up to15 days to sign the said Notice. This hiatus evidences that upongeneration, the notice is not deemed to be ‘issued’.

17.4. TheDepartmenthasitselfadmittedintheComplianceAffidavit, 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 istriggered. Therefore, it is necessary condition for valid issuance of anotice, that the address of the assessee is mentioned for despatch andno Notice can be held to be validly issued without the address beingduly mentioned. This further evidences the fact that the notice isissued only upon its despatch from the ITBA servers and not upongeneration of the Notice on the ITBA screen.

17.5. The respondents have artificially created three distinct stepsi.e.,(a) generation of notice; (b) signing of notice; and (c) triggering ofe-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 ofwhen the e-mail was triggered from the ITBA servers should be takeninto consideration.

17.7. With respect to cases falling in category ‘A’, wherein DSC wasaffixed by JAO on 01[st]April, 2021, or thereafter, the date of DSCshall be taken as the date of Notice, since the same is in consonancewith the note appearing in the footer on the impugned Notices.

17.8. The Compliance Affidavit, in paragraph 6 records the admissionof the Department that the impugned Notices were indeed despatchedby ITBA servers even in case of category ‘C’ on 01st April 2021 orthereafter. Thus, there is clear admission that the impugned Noticesare time barred.

18.Mr. Piyush Kaushik, learned counselfor the petitioner,submitted as under:

18.1. As per Section 148 of the Act of 1961, valid issuance of Noticeis jurisdictional requirement not just mere procedural requirement.There is heavy onus on the Department to provide the date on whichimpugned Notices have been posted or the date and time on which thee-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 thedesignated e-mail address of the JAOs, therefore, to allege that thetriggering of e-mail by the ITBA is separate from the JAO is factuallyincorrect. The process of triggering e-mail by the ITBA softwaresystem is for and on behalf of the JAO and therefore attributable to theJAO.

18.3. The issue of Notice is only effective when the Notice hasmoved out of the control of the AO for delivery to assessee. Hence,

the date on which the e-mail has been transmitted from the e-mail IDof the JAO would be the date of issuance of Notice under Section 149of the Act of 1961.[Yuvraj v. Income Tax Officer & Ors. in W.P.(C)No. 28293 of 2021 order dated 3[rd]March 2022 (MP), and KanubhaiM. Patel (Supra)]

18.4. It is only upon despatch of the e-mail from ITBA servers thatthe impugned Notices could be held to have been issued [AdvanceInfradevelopers (P) Ltd. v. Adjudicating Authority, (2021) 127taxmann.com 197 (Madras)]:

“47. The argument in regard to the order being beyond thecontrol of the person passing it is also relevant, based uponthe principle that an order must be deemed to be completeand valid only when it is prepared, finalised and transmittedfor communication to the concerned person.”

19.Mr. Jaspal Singh Sethi, learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted as follows:

19.1. The screenshot annexed as Annexure P-5 in W.P. (C) No. 4567of 2022 shows that each Notice in addition to DIN, also contains aCommunication Reference ID (‘CRI’). The CRI is generated by theITBA portal to record the date of the issuance of the Notice. Althoughthe CRI for the impugned Notices issued under Section 148 of the Actof 1961, is displayed on the E-filing portal, the date of issuance isconspicuously absent.

19.2. Per contra, another screenshot annexed as Annexure P-3 in thesame writ petition, shows that in the case of other Notices issued

subsequently in 2021, to the same assessee, the date of issuance isduly mentioned along with the CRI on the E-filing portal. Relevantportion of the screen shot is extracted herein below:

Notice/ Communication Reference ID: 100040446529

19.3. The date of issuance has been selectively withheld only withrespect to the impugned Notices, as providing the information wouldmake it evident that the date of issuance even as per the ITBAsoftware system is 01st April, 2021, or thereafter, as the software isalso programmed to record the date of issuance as the date ofdespatch.

20.Mr. T.M. Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted as under:

20.1. As per the provisions of Section 282A of the Act of 1961, for aNotice or any other document to be issued by the income taxauthority, such Notice or document has to be signed and either‘issued’ in paper form or ‘communicated’ in electronic form. Theexpression ‘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, theword ‘issued’ has been replaced with the word ‘communicated’ inSection 282A of the Act of 1961. Therefore, when Notice is in paperform, it has to leave the office of the concerned Authority for despatchto constitute valid issuance. However, in digital form, thecommunication is instant and therefore, merely putting the notice intotransmission cannot be deemed to be communication. To constitute avalid communication the Notice has to be effectively sent out by theconcerned authority to the assessee.

20.3. The Section 282A of the Act of 1961, stipulates communicationof the Notice as sine qua non for due issuance of Notice. Hence,the submission that generation of notice on the ITBA screen satisfiesthe condition of issued under Section 149 is contrary to the mandate ofSection 282A of the Act of 1961.

20.4. Until the ITBA servers transmit the e-mail to the destinationservers of the assessee’s e-mail service provider, there can be no validcommunication of the Notice therefore, consequently, there would beno valid issuance of Notice under Section 149 read with Section 282Aof the Act of 1961.

21.Mr. Kapil Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted asunder:

21.1. The requirement of issuance of Notice under Section 149 of theAct of 1961 is not fulfilled by merely signing of the Section 148Notice. For valid issuance, the Notice has to be sent to the assesseewithin the end of the relevant AY i.e. 31[st]March, 2021. [Smt. ParveenAmin Bhathara v. the Income Tax Officer, Writ Appeal No. 1795 of2021 decided on 27th June 2022]

21.2. The Karnataka High Court, in the judgment of InfineonTechnologies AG AM Campeon v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax; Writ Petition No. 49458 of 2018 decided on 24th June, 2022, atparagraphs 6 and 12 have concluded that since the Notice, althoughdated 31[st]March, 2017, was booked for courier on 04[th]April, 2017, itwould be considered to be issued on 04[th]April, 2017. The Notice washeld to be time barred since it was required to be issued on or before31[st]March, 2017. The date of despatch was determinative of issuancefor the provision of Section 149 of the Act of 1961 and not the date ofNotice.

21.3. The relevant information with respect to the date of issuance ofNotice has been left blank for each of the impugned Notices issued tothe petitioners in the present matters. The said date is not available onthe assessee’s E-filing portal account because if the said information isshared, it would disclose that the date of issuance, even as per theITBA software, is 1[st]April, 2021, or thereafter.

21.4. To demonstrate the aforesaid, the Annexure R-2 annexed withthe Department’s Counter Affidavit in W.P. (C) No. 856 of 2022 canbe perused, which is the screenshot of the ITBA screen of the assesseeas visible to the JAO only. In this Annexure, the Department itself hasextracted relevant portion of the screenshot, which has completedetails 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 theITBA servers, is duly available with the Department. The relevantextract of the screenshot is reproduced herein below:

Register DetailsDespaDatePAN/TAddressSubjComm.ViewModeDatDaStatutch NoofANeeectRef. No.Documeofe oftesissueNamentsDespatDeofchspaSertchvice31.AHIPGANANDNotiITBA/AttachmEmailEmai03.3000FGOELceAST/S/entsl2021u/s148/Deliv1482020-ered21/103211/ 6278(1)…”Sent Email (?)EmailDeliveryEmail Sent OnEmail Delivered OnShared with –StatusProceeding onEmail DetailsDelivered01/04/202101/04/202103/04/202105:29:41 AM05:29:45 AM04:01:39 AM

21.5. Therefore, the time when the e-mail containing the impugnedNotice as an attachment was sent by the ITBA servers, is dulyavailable with the Department in its ITBA portal.

22.The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pawan ShreeAgarwal, 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. Theimpugned Notice was never served to the petitioner on his registerede-mail ID. Instead, it was sent to an unrelated e-mail address. Thepetitioner learnt about the impugned Notice only upon checking his E-filing portal account. Therefore, since there was no communication ofthe notice the Notice should be deemed to not have been issued.

23.Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned Senior Advocate for thepetitioner in W.P. (C) No. 4919 of 2022, submitted as under:

23.1. The impugned Notice issued by the respondent was not servedon the petitioner/assessee’s registered e-mail ID and was sent to anunrelated e-mail ID. The petitioner learnt about the impugned Noticewhich was neither signed physically nor any DSC was appended,incidentally through its E-filing portal. Therefore, there has been nocompliance of the provisions of Section 149 of the Act of 1961, whileissuing the impugned Notice.

Questions of law framed

24.The aforementioned submissions made by both the parties giverise to the following questions of law for consideration by this Court: -

I.Whether the JAO’s act of generating Notice in the ITBAportal on 31[st]March, 2021, without despatching the Noticemeets the test of the expression ‘shall be issued’ in Section149 of the Act of 1961, and saves the Notices from beingtime barred?portal on 31[st]March, 2021, without despatching the Noticemeets the test of the expression ‘shall be issued’ in Section149 of the Act of 1961, and saves the Notices from beingtime barred?

II. Whether “despatch” as per Section 13 of the Act of 2000 issine qua non for issuance of Notice through electronic mailfor the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961?sine qua non for issuance of Notice through electronic mailfor the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961?

III. Whether the time taken by the ITBA’s e-mail softwaresystem on 31[st]March, 2021, in despatching the e-mails tothe assessees is not attributable to the JAOs and theNotices will be deemed to have been issued on 31[st]March,2021?system on 31[st]March, 2021, in despatching the e-mails tothe assessees is not attributable to the JAOs and theNotices will be deemed to have been issued on 31[st]March,2021?

IV. Whether the Section 148 Notices sent as an attachmentthrough e-mails, from the designated e-mail addresses ofthe JAOs, which do not bear the respective JAO’s digitalsignature, are valid under Section 282A the Act of 1961read with Rule 127A of the IT Rules?through e-mails, from the designated e-mail addresses ofthe JAOs, which do not bear the respective JAO’s digitalsignature, are valid under Section 282A the Act of 1961read with Rule 127A of the IT Rules?

V. Whether upload of the Section 148 Notice on the “MyAccount” of the assessee on the E-filing portal is validtransmission under the Act of 1961?Account” of the assessee on the E-filing portal is validtransmission under the Act of 1961?

Analysis and reasons

25.Question No. (I): Whether the JAO’s act of generating Noticein the ITBA portal on 31[st]March, 2021, without despatching theNotice meets the test of the expression ‘shall be issued’ in Section 149of the Act of 1961, and saves the Notices from being time barred?

- The Court has answered this in the negative in favour of theassessee.

25.1. It has emerged as an admitted position on facts, that the e-mailsattaching the impugned Notices dated 31[st]March, 2021, weredespatched by the ITBA servers on 01[st]April, 2021, or thereafter.

25.2. Faced with the aforesaid factual position, it has been contendedby the Department that since generation of impugned Notices on theITBA portal on 31[st]March, 2021, is undisputed, the singular act ofgeneration of Notice by JAO satisfies the requirement of ‘issued’ forthe purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961 and despatch of theNotice on 31[st]March, 2021 is not mandatory requirement.

25.3. The Department contends that since each of the impugnedNotices bear DIN, its generation as on 31[st]March, 2021, is beyonddoubt. It is further contended that since, on the ITBA portal, aftergeneration of Notice the JAO is left with no power to amend, alter,cancel or ante-date the Notice, the said act of generation conclusivelyestablishes that the Notice has been issued.

25.4. The petitioners as noted above have opposed this contention ofthe Department as being contrary to settled law interpreting theexpression ‘issued’, ‘shall be issued’ and the dictionary meaning ofthe phrase ‘issue’. It is contended that under the Act of 1961, Noticeis held to be ‘issued’ on the date of its due despatch and not on thedate the notice is drawn up.

25.5. It would be useful to refer to the judgments relied upon by thepetitioners, which clearly bring out that for an authority to contendthat Notice has been issued, the same must be duly despatched bythe issuing authority. The first instructive judgment on this point is

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 September14, 1992, is as under:

“(ii) Government servants in respect of whom charge-sheethas been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending;and”

13.…The context in which the word ‘issued’ has been used,merelymeansthatthedecisiontoinitiatedisciplinaryproceedings is taken and translated into action by despatch of-the chargesheet leaving no doubt that the decision had beentaken.The contrary view would defeat the object by enablingthe government servant, if so inclined, to evade service andthereby frustrate the decision and get promotion in spite of thatdecision. Obviously, the contrary view cannot be taken.

15. The meaning of the word ‘issued’, on which considerablestress was laid by learned counsel for the respondent, has to begathered from the context in which it is used. Meanings of theword ‘issue’ given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionaryinclude : ‘to give exit to; to send forth, or allow to pass out; tolet out; … to give or send out authoritatively or officially; tosend forth or deal out formally or publicly; to emit, put intocirculation’. The issue of charge-sheet, therefore, means itsdespatch to the government servant, and this act is complete the-moment steps are taken for the purpose, by framing the chargesheet and despatching it to the government servant, the furtherfact of its actual service on the government servant not being anecessary part of its requirement

(Emphasis supplied)

In the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court emphatically laiddown that despatch is an essential condition to complete the act ofissuance. The Court clarified that service on the recipient was not acondition precedent for satisfying the act of issuance.

25.6. It would also be useful to refer to the judgment of the SupremeCourt in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (Supra). In the said case, theSupreme Court was concerned with the controversy of the validity of anotice with reference to Sections 148 and 149 of the Act of 1961. Inthe said case, the notice under Section 148 of the Act of 1961, wasdespatched by registered post on 31[st]March, 1970, but the same wasreceived by the assessee on 03[rd]April, 1970; and therefore, the GujaratHigh Court after observing that the expression ‘issued’ and ‘served’ inSection 148 and 149 have the same meaning, held that the notice wastime barred. In appeal, the Supreme Court after taking note that theNotice was despatched by registered post on 31[st]March, 1970, setaside the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court held thatthe service of notice is not condition precedent for satisfying thecondition of “issued”. The date of despatch of the notice was takeninto consideration by the Supreme Court as the relevant date fordetermining that the notice has been validly issued for the purpose ofSection 149 of the Act of 1961. The date of notice is discernible fromthe judgment of High Court[1].

25.7. The contention of the Department that since the impugnedNotices were generated and digitally signed on 31[st]March, 2021, the

1Shanabhai P. Patel Vs. R.K. Upadhyaya reported in 1973 SCC Online Guj 42 : (1974) 96 ITR141

same should be considered as the date of issue, notwithstanding thefact that the same had not been despatched, was categorically rejectedby 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 notice issuedin paper form, at paragraphs 13 and 16 observed as under:

13. …Whereas, on behalf of the revenue, it has been contendedthat the notices were actually signed on 31.3.2010, hence, thesaid date would be the date of issue and as such, the impugnednotices have been issued within the time limit prescribed undersection 149 of the Act.

16. Thus, the expression to issue in the context of issuance ofnotices, writs and process, has been attributed the meaning, tosend out; to place in the hands of the proper officer for service.The expression “shall be issued” as used in section 149 wouldtherefore have to be read in the aforesaid context. In the presentcase, the impugned notices have been signed on 31.03.2010,whereas the same were sent to the speed post centre for bookingonly on 07.04.2010. Considering the definition of the wordissue, it is apparent that merely signing the notices on31.03.2010, cannot be equated with issuance of notice ascontemplated under section 149 of the Act.The date of issuewould be the date on which the same were handed over forservice to the proper officer, which in the facts of the presentcase would be the date on which the said notices were actuallyhanded over to the post office for the purpose of booking for thepurpose of effecting service on the petitioners. Till the point oftime the envelopes are properly stamped with adequate value ofpostal stamps, it cannot be stated that the process of issue iscomplete. In the facts of the present case, the impugned noticeshaving been sent for booking to the Speed Post Centre only on07.04.2010, the date of issue of the said notices would be07.04.2010 and not 31.03.2010, as contended on behalf of the

revenue. In the circumstances, impugned the notices undersection 148 in relation to assessment year 2003-04, having beenissued on 07.04.2010 which is clearly beyond the period of sixyears from the end of the relevant assessment year, are clearlybarred by limitation and as such, cannot be sustained.…”

(Emphasis Supplied)

The Gujarat High Court categorically held that it is on the dateof despatch of the Section 148 notice that the same will be held to beissued 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) andconsidering 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 assessmentof the appellant for the assessment year 2011-12, through noticedated 31.03.2018 under section 148 of the Act. Admittedly, thelimitation period of six years for reopening the assessment,came to an end on 31.03.2018. The main plank of contention ofthe learned counsel for the appellant is that the notice undersection 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2018 has been received bythe appellant through e-mail only on 18.04.2018 i.e., after theexpiry of six years from the end of the assessment year underconsideration and hence, the same is clearly barred bylimitation, whereas the Department contended that mere signingof notice by the respondent on 31.03.2018 amounts to issuanceof notice under section 149 of the Act and therefore, the same iswithin the limitation period.

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 Acthas to be reckoned not from the date when it was issued, but onthe date when it was actually delivered on the assessee”…

Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid decisions that theissuance of notice under section 149 is complete only when thesame is issued in the manner as prescribed under section 282r/w rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules prescribing the mode ofservice of notice under the Act. The signing of notice would notamount to issuance of notice as contemplated under section 149of the Act. In other words, the requirement of issuance of noticeunder section 149 is not mere signing of the notice undersection 148, but is sent to the proper person within the end ofthe relevant assessment year.

(Emphasis Supplied)

In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Madras High Courtcategorically rejected the submission of the Department that signing ofNotice, without despatch, would amount to issuance of Notice ascontemplated under Section 149 of the Act of 1961.

25.9. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Yuvraj v. Income TaxOfficer (Supra) similarly dealt with case of Section 148 Noticedated 31[st]March, 2021, which was sent by e-mail to the assessee on16[th]April, 2021.The High Court held that the Notice was issued on16[th]April, 2021 and quashed the same reserving liberty to theDepartment to issue fresh Notice under Section 148A of the Act of

1961, in accordance with law. The grounds for challenging theimpugned Notice in the said case were same as have been raisedherein for challenging the impugned Notices falling under category‘A’ and ‘B’.

25.10. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Daujee AbhusanBhandar (Supra),was earliest to hold that drawing up Notice on 31[st]March, 2021, and digitally signing the same, in the absence ofdespatch, does not amount to issuance of Notice within the meaning ofSection 149 of the Act of 1961. The High Court after elaboratelydiscussing the provisions of Sections 282 and 282A of the Act of1961, and the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 2000, held that,since the impugned Notice therein though dated 31[st]March, 2021, wasissued through e-mail on 06[th]April, 2021, the same was time barredand therefore liable to be quashed. The Court at paragraph 29 and 30held as under:

29. Thus, considering the provisions of sections 282 and 282Aof the Act, 1961 and the provisions of section 13 of the Act,2000 and meaning of the word "issue" we find that firstly noticeshall be signed by the assessing authority and then it has to beissued either in paper form or be communicated in electronicform by delivering or transmitting the copy thereof to the persontherein named by modes provided in section 282 which includestransmitting in the form of electronic record. Section 13(1) ofthe Act, 2000 provides that unless otherwise agreed, thedespatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters intocomputer resources outside the control of the originator. Thus,the point of time when digitally signed notice in the form ofelectronic record is entered in computer resources outside thecontrol of the originator i.e. the assessing authority that shall

the date and time of issuance of notice under section 148 readwith section 149 of the Act, 1961.

30.In view of the discussion made above, we hold that meredigitally signing the notice is not the issuance of notice. Sincethe impugned notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 wasissued 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 isquashed.

(Emphasis Supplied)

25.11. In the subsequent judgments of the Allahabad High Court inthe case of Santosh Krishna HUF (Supra) and Mohan Lal Santwani(Supra) the High Court summoned the details of date and time oftriggering of e-mail by the ITBA e-mail software system to determinethe date of issuance of the e-mail attaching the Notice. The High Courtheld the said date of triggering of e-mail to be the date of issue ofSection 148 Notice for the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961.

25.12.The review of the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Courtand the several High Courts shows that all Courts have consistentlyheld that the expression ‘issue’ in its common parlance and its legalinterpretation means that the issuer of the notice must after drawing upthe notice and signing the notice, make an overt act to ensure duedespatch of the notice to the addressee. It is only upon due despatch,that the notice can be said to have been ‘issued’.

25.13. Further, perusal of the Compliance Affidavit reveals thatwhile the function of generation of Notice on ITBA portal and digitalsigning of the Notice is executed by the JAO, the function of draftingof the e-mail to which the Notice is attached and triggering the e-mailto the assessee is performed by the ITBA e-mail software system.

Thus, mere generation of Notice on the ITBA Screen cannot infact or in law constitute issue of notice, whether the notice is issued inpaper form or electronic form. In case of paper form, the notice mustbe despatched by post on or before 31st March 2021 and forcommunication in electronic form the e-mail should have beendespatched on or before 31[st]March 2021.

In the present writ petitions, the despatch by post and e-mailwas carried out on or after 01[st]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 lawsettled by the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (Supra)in which the Court was concerned with issuance of the Section 148notice in paper form and concluded that, since the date of despatchwas within prescribed period of limitation, the notice was validlyissued for the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961, and held thatthe date of service of notice was not relevant. In fact, the Departmenthas relied upon the said judgment. The said judgment squarely appliesto Notice classified as category ‘E’. The amendments to the Act of1961 including Section 282A was to enable the income tax authorityto issue notice either in paper form or electronic form and were made

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 forissuing notice in no manner mitigates against or dispense with thelegal requirement of the Department to ensure due despatch of theSection 148 notice to satisfy the test of Section 149 of the Act of 1961.The contention of the Department that upon generation of the Noticeon the ITBA Screen simpliciter (even before its despatch) is to be heldto be issued does not persuade the Court and is contrary to thejudgment 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 dealingwith Section 143(1) of the Act of 1961, has held that the law requiresthat, the intimation under Section 143(1) should be communicated tothe assessee. The uncommunicated orders or intimations cannot beenforced and are not valid. The relevant extract of the aforesaiddecision is reproduced hereinunder:

33. The second grievance of the assessee is with regard to theuncommunicated intimiations under Section 143(1) whichremained on paper/file or the computer of the Assessing Officer.This is serious challenge and matter of grave concern. Thelaw requires intimation under Section 143(1) should becommunicated to the assessee, if there is an adjustment made inthe return resulting either in demand or reduction in refund.The uncommunicated orders/intimations cannot be enforcedand are not valid. …

…Butwhenthereisfailuretodespatchorsendcommunication/intimation to the assessee consequences mustfollow. Such intimation/order prior to 31 March, 2010, will betreated as non est or invalid for want of communication/servicewithin reasonable time.This exercise, it is desirable should beundertaken expeditiously by the Assessing Officers. CBDT willissue instructions to the Assessing Officers.

(Emphasis Supplied)

25.16. The Department sought to contend that the Madras High Courtin Malavika Enterprises (Supra) has struck discordant chord withthe judgment in the Daujee Abhusan Bhandar (Supra). However, ona perusal of the judgment in Malavika Enterprises (Supra), we findthat in the said case the notice had been despatched on 31[st]March,2021, at 6.42 pm by the ITBA server, though served on the assesseeon 01[st]April, 2021, at 2.00 am and therefore, the Madras High Courtconcluded that the notice has been validly issued on 31[st]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 undersection 148 of the Act of 1961 is said to have been issued on 31-3-2021 for the assessment year 2013-2014, followed byconsequential notices. It is the case of the petitioner that thenotice is said to have been issued vide email at 6.42 pm, but wasserved on 1-4-2021 at 2 am and, therefore, the unamendedprovision of section 148 of the Act of 1961 would not beapplicable to the case……”

We do not find that this judgment takes the case of the Departmentany further as the Section 148 notice in the case was duly despatchedon 31[st]March, 2021.

25.17. The Department has not cited any judgment which wouldsupport its contention that mere drawing up of Notice and signing it(pending despatch) amounts to issuance. The counsel for therespondent placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the SupremeCourt in M.M. Rubber & Co. (Supra). In the said case as well, theapex Court was concerned with the issue of limitation whiledetermining if the impugned order therein had been passed withintime. However, the provision under consideration was Section 35-E(3) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (“Act of 1944”), whichreads as under:

Sub-Section (3) of Section 35E of the Act which deals with thelimitation for exercise of the powers under sub- sections (1) and(2) of the Act and which is the relevant provision forconsideration in this appeal reads as follows:

"No order shall be madeunder sub-section (1) or subsection (2)after the expiry of one year from the date of the decision ororder of the adjudicating authority.…"

The Court in the aforesaid judgment deliberated with referenceto the phrase “No ordershall be made” in Section 35-E(3) of the Actof 1944 and concluded that the date on which the order was made bythe adjudicatory authority by signing it is relevant date for

determining if it was passed within limitation. As is evident, theexpression used in Section 35-E (3) of the Act of 1944, is “no ordershall be made” which is distinct from the expression used in theSection 149 of the Act of 1961 which reads as “No noticeunder”Section 148 shall be issued. The two statutory provisions arematerially different and the ratio of the said judgment can have nobearing in interpreting Section 149 of the Act of 1961.

25.18.Additionally, the contention of the counsel for the Departmentthat generation of Section 148 Notice on ITBA screen amounts to“issued” within the meaning of Section 149 of the Act of 1961 is notborne out from the instructions issued by the Directorate of IncomeTax (Systems). On the contrary, the said circulars duly recognize thatafter generation of notice the concerned income tax authority isrequired 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 followingInstructions:

a.TheITBAAssessmentInstructionNo.2[F.No.System/ITBA/Instruction/Assessment/16-17/177dated01.08.2016]issuedbytheDirectorateofIncomeTax(System)mentions that:

“the AO Staff/ AO Inspector will not be able to generate thenotice but will be able to view the notices already generated bythe AO for taking printout of the same, for issue to theassessee.”

b.The ITBA Assessment Instruction No. 3 [F No.System/ITBA/Instruction/Assessment/177/16-17/]dated03.02.2017, also illustrates the same distinction:

“Details of the Authority/party from whom information isrequisitioned can be entered alongwith date for compliance andthe Notice can then be generated and issued.”

25.19. The counsel for the Department have also sought to argue thatgeneration of Notice with DIN on ITBA Screen conclusivelyindicates that the Notice has been irrevocably issued. The submissionof the respondent is not borne out from the applicable circularregarding DIN issued by CBDT and is therefore mere ipse dixit ofthe counsel.

25.20. As per Circular No. 19/2019 (F. No. 225/95/2019-ITA.II)dated 14[th]August, 2019 issued by the CBDT, the DIN was introducedto maintain proper audit of trail of communications issued byincome tax authority. The said circular does not state that thegeneration of DIN would automatically constitute issuance of thenotice.Relevantextractfromtheaforementionedcircularisreproduced as under:

…However, it has been brought to the notice of Central Boardof Direct Taxes (the Board) that there have been some instancesinwhichthenotice,order,summons,letterandanycorrespondence (hereinafter referred to as “communication”)were found to have been issued manually, without maintaininga proper audit trail of such communication.

2.In order to prevent such instances and to maintain properaudit trail of all communication, the Boardin exercise of powerunder section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafterreferred to as "the Act"), has decided that no communicationshall be issued by any income tax authorityrelating toassessment, appeals, orders, statutory or otherwise, exemptions,enquiry, investigation, verification of information, penalty,prosecution, rectification, approval etc. to the assessee or anyother person, on or after the 1st day of October, 2019 unless a-computergenerated Document Identification Number (DIN) hasbeen allotted and is duly quoted in the body of' suchcommunication.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

In fact, in several cases, we take judicial notice that even as ondate the JAOs issue notices which do not have DIN and in those casesthe Department contends that the absence of the DIN does not makethose notices invalid.

25.21. The contention of the counsel for the Department that since thedate of the issuance of the Notices is disputed issue of fact the sameshould not be entertained in the writ petitions is also without merit.There is no dispute in the present cases and it has been concededduring rejoinder arguments that the Notices have been despatched onor after 1[st]April, 2021, unlike in the case of Rajesh SunderdasVaswani (Supra) where the date of despatch was seriously disputed.This Court has only been called upon to determine the legal effect ofthe despatch of 1[st]April 2021 and thereafter, on the validity of thenotices dated 31[st]March, 2021.

25.22. In this regard, it would be useful to note that, theimpugned Notice in W.P. (C) 5316 of 2022 was classified in category‘C’. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the JAO on30[th]July 2022 determined that the said Notice though generated andsigned on 31[st]March 2021 was issued through e-mail by the ITBAservers on 6[th]April, 2021. It has been brought to this Court’s attentionthat the JAO has now self-determined that the same shall be governedby the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal (Supra) andJAO has accordingly proceeded to treat the Notice dated 31[st]March2021 as notice under Section 148A(b).

The aforesaid acts of the JAO belie the submissions of thecounsel for the Department that the generation of the Notice on theITBAscreenconstitutesissuance.Itfurthersubstantiatesthecontention of the petitioners that the date and time of issue of the e-mails by the ITBA servers are readily available with the Departmentand therefore there is no disputed issue of facts.

25.23. We therefore answer question no. (I) in negative against theDepartment and hold that the impugned Notices dated 31st March,2021, which were despatched on 1[st]April, 2021, or thereafter, wouldnot meet the test of ‘issued’ under Section 149 of the Act of 1961 andwould be time barred, unless saved by the judgment of the SupremeCourt in Ashish Aggarwal (Supra).

25.24. With respect to impugned Notices falling in category ‘A’, thereis an additional factor which evidences that the said Notices wereadmittedly not issued on 31[st]March, 2021. The said Notices were

digitally signed on 01[st]April, 2021, or thereafter. The note appearingat the foot of each Notice clearly declares that the date of theaffixation of digital signature shall be treated as the date of the Notice.The note reads “if digitally signed, the date of signature may be takenas date of document”. In these Notices therefore, the date of theNotice itself is determined by the date of affixation of digital signatureand 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 lawand should be ignored by this Court, cannot be accepted. TheDepartment cannot deny the contents of its own Notice and it is boundby the said contents.

25.25. In this regard it will also be useful to refer to Para 2.10.6 of theITBA, User Assessment Manual, Version 1.9, August 2020, asreferred to by the Department in its Counter Affidavit in W.P. (C) No.13814 of 2021. The said instruction draws the attention of the incometax officer to the consequence of the date of digital signature and dateof generation of document being different, if the digital signatures areaffixed subsequently. Para 2.10.6 reads as under:

ii. Generate and Digitally sign later (Applicable for single aswell as bulk generation):

Click Generate and Digitally sign later. In this case, documentwill be generated successfully immediately.will be generated successfully immediately.

To sign the document later, go to “View/Edit DespatchRegister” Screen. Select the status as ‘Pending for signing’and Search.Register” Screen. Select the status as ‘Pending for signing’and Search.

Select the document and click Sign Documents. Ensure DSC isattached to the system.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 thecase of orders as the date of generation of document and dateof digital sign may be different as these will be actual date ofgeneration and digital signing.…”case of orders as the date of generation of document and dateof digital sign may be different as these will be actual date ofgeneration 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. Sincethe date of affixation of DSC on the impugned Notices is 1[st]April2021 and thereafter they were sent and delivered through the ITBAportal on or after 1[st]of April 2021, the impugned Notices falling undercategory ‘A’ can only be said to have been issued on or after 1[st]ofApril 2021.

Illustratively, in W.P. (C) 1759/2022 the Notice even thoughdated 31[st]March 2021 was digitally signed on 1[st]April 2021 andthereafter was sent and delivered through ITBA portal on 15[th]April2021, in this case, the date of the impugned Notice is 1[st]April 2021(i.e., the date on which it was digitally signed) and it was issuedthrough e-mail on the 15[th]of April 2021.

Finding for Notices falling under category ‘E’

25.26. With respect to the impugned Notices which have beenclassified as category ‘E’, the date of despatch through speed post is

determined as the date of issuance following the judgment of theSupreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya (Supra).

Illustratively, in W.P. (C) 11010 of 2021, the Notice dated 31[st]March 2021 was booked for despatch through speed post on 10[th]June2021, in this case, the Notice can be said to have been issued only on10[th]June 2021 i.e. when it was booked for despatch through speedpost.

25.27. With respect to the impugned Notices sent by e-mail andforming subject matter of category ‘C’ the Department has raised anadditional defence that though the e-mails were admittedly despatchedon 01[st]April, 2021 or thereafter, the same was due to the time taken byITBA e-mail software system to trigger the e-mails, this delay indespatch should not be attributed to the JAO for despatch and theNotices should be ‘deemed’ to have been issued on 31[st]March, 2021.This contention of the Department is specifically dealt with in answerto question no. (III).

26.Question No. (II):Whether “despatch” as per Section 13 of theAct of 2000 is sine qua non for issuance of Notice through electronicmail for the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961?- The Courthas answered this is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee.

AND

Question No. (III): Whether the time taken by the ITBA’s e-mailsoftware system on 31[st]March, 2021, in despatching the e-mails to theassessee is not attributable to the JAOs and the notices will be deemed

to have been issued on 31st March, 2021? -The Court has answeredthis 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. 02/2016dated 3rd February, 2016 and Notification No. 04/2017 dated 3rdApril, 2017 has laid down the procedure, formats and standards forensuring secured transmission of electronic communication for serviceof notice under Section 282 of the Act of 1961.

26.2. These notifications categorically mention that the time andplace of despatch and receipt of electronic communications made bythe Income Tax authorities shall have the same meaning as providedin Section 13 of the Act of 2000. The relevant portions of thenotifications are reproduced hereinunder: -

NotificationNo.2/2016dated3rdFebruary,2016DGIT(S)/DIT(S)-3/AST/PaperlessAssessmentProceedings/96/2015-1 authorized by the Principal DirectorGeneral of Income Tax (Systems)

“m. For the purpose of this notification, the time and place ofdespatch and receipt of electronic record or electroniccommunication shall have the same meaning as provided inSection 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000(No.21 of2000).”

NotificationNo.4/2017dated3[rd]April,2017titledDGIT(S)/DIT(S)-3/AST/PaperlessAssessment

Proceedings/96/2015-16 authorized by the Principal DirectorGeneral of Income Tax (Systems)

“n) For the purpose of this notification the time and place ofdespatch and receipt of electronic record or electroniccommunication shall have the same meaning asprovided inSection 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000(No. 21 of2000). Further, the registered account on the E-filing websiteis deemed to be computer resource designated by assessee inaccordance with Section 13 of the Information Technology Act,2000 (No. 21 of 2000).

Therefore, the contention of Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, learnedcounsel for the Department, that Section 13 of the Act of 2000, is notapplicable to the impugned Notices issued through e-mail, is incontradiction with the aforementioned notifications and the statutoryprovision of Section 282 of the Act of 1961.

26.3. Now therefore for determination of the time of despatch of theimpugned Notices issued through e-mail, Section 13 of the Act of2000 has to be referred to. The relevant portion of Section 13 of theAct of 2000 is reproduced hereunder:

“13. Time and place of despatch and receipt of electronicrecord.—(1)Saveasotherwiseagreedtobetweentheoriginator and the addressee,the despatch of an electronicrecord occurs when it enters computer resource outside thecontrol of the originator.

(2) ……”

26.4.Thus, on plain reading of the aforementioned provision, it isevident that, the “despatch” under Section 13 of the Act of 2000

occurs when the electronic record reaches “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 person who sends, generates, storesor transmits any electronic message; or causes any electronicmessage to be sent, generated, stored or transmitted to anyother 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 recordshall be attributed to the originator—

(a) if it was sent by the originator himself;

(b) by person who had the authority to act on behalf of theoriginator in respect of that electronic record; or

(c) by an information system programmed by oron behalf of theoriginator to operate automatically

26.7.In the present case, the “originator”, as per Section 2(za) of theAct of 1961, is indubitably the Department. The same is confirmed bythe contents of the Compliance Affidavit. As stated in the ComplianceAffidavit, the JAO is the income tax authority designated by theDepartment to generate and sign the Section 148 Notice on behalf oftheDepartment.TheITBAportalisaninformationsystemprogrammed by TCS for the Department to operate automatically. The

ITBA portal is the computer resource designated by the Departmentfor (a) drafting the e-mail to which the Notice is attached; and (b) fordespatching 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 twoinseparable and complementing functions for the Department, whichtogether constitute generation of Notice + drafting of the e-mail by theITBA e-mail software and its despatch through dedicated ITBAservers. Thus, whilst the Department is the attributed originator of theimpugned Notices within the meaning of Section 11(c) of the Act of2000, ITBA portal is the ‘computer resource’ under the control of theDepartment.

26.8. In light of the aforesaid findings of this Court, the submissionsmade by Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Senior Standing counsel for theDepartment, that the JAO and the ITBA are distinct and that the JAOis the originator and hence not liable for delay in despatch, areuntenable in law and facts.

26.9. Now, in order to determine when does “despatch” i.e. thetransmission of electronic record or the Notices in the present case,from the Department occur, we may first note the precedence set byseveral High Courts in the context of ITBA portal. Under Section 13of the Act of 2000, various High Courts have concluded that thedespatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters computerresource 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.

[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 compilation of recentjudgments passed by the Allahabad High Court following the DaujeeAbhushan (Supra) case. On perusal of the judgments submitted, it isnoted that, the Allahabad Court had in Santosh Krishna HUF (Supra),while dealing with the same issue of despatch, relied on the commentsof the ADIT-5, ITBA O/o DIT (Systems) for determination of theaforesaid issue. In his comments, the officer forwarded the details asavailable with the ITBA Technical Team, the said details included (i)Date & Generation of Notice under Section 148 in ITBA System byAO, (ii)Date & Time of Digital Signing (DSC) in ITBA by AO, (iii)-Date & Time of triggering of email automatedly by ITBA Technicalserversand (iv) Date & Time of delivering of e-mail. The AllahabadCourtfollowingtheratiolaiddowninDaujeeAbhushan(Supra),determinedthedate&timeoftriggeringofe-mailautomatedly by ITBA technical servers as the date and time ofissuance of the notice.

26.11. This Court as well, in the given facts, has examined at whatpoint does the Notice actually enter ‘computer resource’ outside thecontrol of the Department which uses the ITBA portal and itsdedicated servers. In pursuance of the same, technical breakdown ofthe process was called for.

26.12. The Compliance Affidavit, filed by the Department states thatthe 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 achain 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, thee-mail service i.e. the User Agent (‘UA’) of the sender transmits it tothe Message Transfer Agents (‘MTAs’) i.e. servers of the sender’s e-mail service. Through sequence of such MTAs i.e. servers, the e-mail reaches the destination MTA i.e. server of the recipient’s e-mailservice. In case the recipient is using an intermediary server, it reachesthe 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 usesdedicated servers for transmitting e-mails and therefore the e-mail isdespatched when the same leaves the ITBA servers for the recipientassessee’s designated e-mail service servers. simplified illustrationof the SMTP model showing this process, as confirmed by the counselfor the petitioners and respondents, is reproduced hereinunder:

MessagingGateway of ITDepartmentAssessingUser AgentOfficer1.Sent mail’s(ITBA MTA(Sender)(ITBA System)queueserver)DestinationServer ofAssesseeAssesseeUser AgentAssessee’s(Receiver)Mailbox(MTA server of(Eg. Gmail)assessee)

26.14. For the purpose of this illustration, the double arrows indicatetransmission between computer resources that are of the ITBA e-mailsoftware system and therefore, within the control of the Department;and the single arrows indicate transmission between computerresources that are within the control of or used by the assessee.

26.15.This illustration, as verified by the respondents, attests to thefact that the MTA i.e. server of the ITBA is computer resourcebelonging to the Department. As established earlier, the Department isthe originator as per Section 11(c) of the Act of 2000, hence, thedespatch occurs when it leaves the last MTA server of the ITBA andenters computer resource that the Department does not have control

over, i.e. the MTA server of the e-mail service that the assessee isusing.

26.16.The counsel for the petitioners have brought this Court’sattention to the screenshot of the E-filing portal submitted by theassessee, Mr. Bhushan Lal Pandita in W.P.(C) 4567/2022. The saidscreenshot shows that the E-filing portal, for the notices issued to thesaid assessee under Section 142(1), duly publishes the date ofissuance, however, in the case of the impugned Notice issued underSection 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 theITBA portal annexed to the Counter filed by the respondent inW.P.(C) No. 856/2022. The ITBA portal can only be accessed orviewed by the officers of the Department and not by the assessee. Thescreenshot of the ITBA portal reveals that in the “View/EnterDespatch Details” section the ITBA portal duly records the date ofissue, date of despatch and date of service. It separately records thetime 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 thee-mail was shared with the E-filing portal database.

26.18. Further as noted above, Mr. Puneet Rai, learned counsel for therespondenthasduringrejoinderargumentsadmittedthattheinformation with respect to the date and time of despatch of theimpugned Notices through ITBA e-mail software system is duly

available and therefore, capable of determination. This now standsestablished by the subsequent notice issued by the JAO in W.P.(C)5316/2022 wherein the date of issuance through e-mail is dulyrecorded. The screenshots supplied by the counsel for the petitioners,also attests to the said fact, that such information is in fact availablewith the Department through the records of the ITBA portal.

26.19. It would also be relevant to note that the time taken by theITBA e-mail software system on 31[st]March, 2021, to despatch the e-mails was not due to any software glitch. The time taken by thesoftware system was as per the programming of the system, asadmitted in the Compliance Affidavit. The programming to despatchthe Notices in controlled manner and batch mode was pre-existingfact and to the knowledge of the Department. The time taken indespatch of the e-mail on 31st March, 2021, was therefore as per thecontrols set in the ITBA system.

26.20.We are in respectful agreement with the law laid down by thevarious High Courts in Daujee Abhushan (Supra), Santosh KrishnaHUF(Supra),MohanLalSantwani(Supra),AdvanceInfradevelopers (P) Ltd. (Supra) and Yuvraj v. Income Tax Officer(Supra), that for determining when Notices were issued, the date andtime of when the ITBA e-mail software system is triggered and theNotices leave the last ITBA server would be considered.

26.21.We therefore answer question no. (II) in affirmative and holdthat despatch as per Section 13 of the Act of 2000, is sine qua non

and happens when the electronic mail message leaves the ITBA’sservers.

26.22.We answer question no. (III) against the Department and holdthat the time taken by the ITBA’s e-mail software system in triggeringthe e-mail and transmitting the said e-mails from the ITBA servers isattributable to the Department and therefore for the e-mails despatchedon 1[st]April 2021 or thereafter, the Notices are held not to have beenissued on 31st March 2021.

26.23.We also take judicial notice of the fact that the Department fromMay, 2022, for Notices issued on or after 1[st]April 2021, hasconsidered the date and time of despatch of the notices as recorded bythe ITBA portal as the date of issuance and disregarded the date ofgeneration of notice i.e. 31.03.2021. For notices despatched on or after1[st]April 2021, the Department, following the Supreme Court’s orderin Ashish Agarwal (Supra) considered the notices as issued underSection 148A of the Act of 1961. This shows that the Departmentitself acknowledges and admits that the date of generation is distinctfrom date of issuance and the Department considers the despatch byITBA Portal as the date of issue for the purpose of Section 149 of theAct of 1961.

Finding for Notices falling under category ‘C’

Since the time taken by the ITBA email software system in triggeringthe e-mails is attributable to the Department, the AO is directed todetermine the date and time on which the emails were triggered by the

ITBA system server as per the ITBA records and consider the same asthe date of issuance.

Illustratively, in W.P.(C) 8994 of 2021 for the Notice dated 31[st]March 2021 and digitally signed on 31[st]March 2021 the JAO isdirected to determine the date and time of despatch as recorded byITBA portal and consider the same as the date of issuance

27.Question No. (IV) Whether the Section 148 Notices sent as anattachment through e-mails, from the designated e-mail addresses ofthe JAOs, which do not bear the respective JAO’s digital signature arevalid under Section 282A the Act of 1961 read with Rule 127A of theIT 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 digitallysigned. They were sent to the assessees via e-mail, with the Noticedocuments appended as an attachment, from the designated e-mailaddresses 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 optionsmay have been chosen, the JAOs may have selected option (a) and didnot affix DSC later which triggered the e-mail system software of theITBA 15 days after generation of notice and despatched the unsignednotice through email or (b) generated Notice without any DSC whichideally should have triggered the e-mail system software of the ITBAimmediately.

27.2. It was stated by the learned counsel for the Department that inview of Section 282A of the Act of 1961 and Rule 127A of the ITRules, affixation of DSC is not mandatory. notice will beconsidered authenticated if the name and office of the designatedincome-tax authority is printed, stamped or otherwise written. It wasalso pleaded that the lack of DSC is merely defect and would fallunder Section 292B of the Act of 1961.

27.3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in response, had reliedupon Instruction No. 1/2018 [F. No. 225/157/2017- ITA II] dated12.02.2018 and Notification No. 137/ 2021 dated 13.12.2021 andargued that the affixation of DSC is mandatory as per these circulars.

27.4. The aforementioned provisions relied on by the Revenue arereproduced hereunder:

[Authentication of notices and other documents.

Section 282A. (1) Where this Act requires notice or otherdocument to be issued by any income-tax authority, such noticeor other document shall be [signed and issued in paper form orcommunicatedinelectronicformbythatauthorityinaccordance 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 incometax authority, shallbe deemed to be authenticated if the name and office of adesignatedincome-taxauthorityisprinted,stampedorotherwise written thereon.

(3) For the purposes of this section, designated income-taxauthority shall mean any income-tax authority authorised by theBoard to issue, serve or give such notice or other documentafter authentication in the manner as provided in sub-section(2).]

(Emphasis Supplied)

[Authentication of notices and other documents.

Rule 127A. (1) Every notice or other document communicatedinelectronic form by an income-tax authority under the Actshall 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 officeof such income-tax authority—

(i)is printed on the e-mail body, if the notice or otherdocument is in the e-mail body itself; or

(ii)is printed on the attachment to the e-mail, if the notice orother document is in the attachment, and the e-mail is issuedfrom thedesignatede-mail addressof such income-taxauthority;

(b)in case of an electronic record, if the name and office ofthe income-tax authority—

(i)is displayed as part of the electronic record, if thenotice or other document is contained as text or remark in theelectronic record itself; or

(ii)is printed on the attachment in the electronic record, ifthe notice or other document is in the attachment, and suchelectronic 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 specifythe designated e-mail address of the income-tax authority, thedesignated website and the procedure, formats and standardsfor ensuring authenticity of the communication.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

27.5. The circulars relied on by the counsel for the Petitioners havebeen reproduced hereunder:

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 inScrutiny Cases Electronically’

“Sub-section (23C) of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(Act),applicablefrom1-6-2016,providesthat "hearing"includescommunicationof data and documentsthroughelectronic mode. Accordingly to facilitate conduct of assessmentproceedings electronically, vide letter dated 23-6-2017, in fileof even number, Board had issued 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 forscrutiny would be conducted electronically in 'E-Proceeding'facility through assessee's account in E-filing website ofIncome-tax Department.

4.2UseofdigitalsignaturebyAssessingOfficer:AllDepartmental orders/communications /notices being issued tothe assessee through the 'e-Proceeding' facility are to be signeddigitally by the Assessing Officer.

(Emphasis Supplied)Notification No. 137/2021 - S.O. 5187(E) -e-VerificationScheme, 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 theAct;Act;

(iii)calling for information by the prescribed income-taxauthority under section 133C of the Act;authority under section 133C of the Act;

(iv)exercise of power to inspect registers of companies undersection 134 of the Act; andsection 134 of the Act; and

(v)exercise of power of Assessing Officer under section 135of the Act.of the Act.

10. Authentication of electronic record.―For the purposes of this Scheme, an electronic record shall be authenticated by the–

(i)CommissionerofIncome-tax(e-Verification)orthePrescribed Authority, as the case may be, by affixing its digitalsignature;...”

(Emphasis Supplied)

27.6. On perusal of the circulars submitted by the learned counselfor the petitioners, it can be seen that they are not applicable to Section148 notices.Instruction No. 1/2018 [F. No. 225/157/2017- ITA II]dated 12.02.2018 pertains specifically to notices issued under Section143 read with Sections 142 & 2(23C) of the Act of 1961, hence it isinapplicable to the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act of1961. Further, Notification No. 137/2021 dated 13.12.2021 deals withthe 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 thepresent 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 thepurposes of authentication of the electric communication, insertedSection 282A. The original Section 282A(1) read as - “Where this Act

requires notice or other document to be issued by any income-taxauthority, such notice or other document shall be signed in manuscriptby that authority”.

27.8. This Section 282 was amended by the Finance Act, 2016 andthe expression “shall be signed in Manuscript by the authority” wasreplaced with “signed and issued in paper form or communicated inelectronic form by the authority in accordance with such procedure asmay be prescribed”.

27.9. The scope and effect of this amendment was explained in theMemorandum of Finance Bill, 2016, wherein it is stated that, theprovision is being amended to enable the Income Tax authority toissue notice and documents under the Act, either in paper form or inelectronic form, in accordance with such procedure as may beprescribed. The relevant portion of the Memorandum Explaining theFinance Bill, 2016 is reproduced hereunder:

“Providinglegalframeworkforautomationofvariousprocesses and paperless assessment

It is proposed to amend the relevant provisions of the Act so asto provide adequate legal framework for paperless assessmentin order to enhance efficiency and reduce the burden ofcompliance.A series of changes are proposed to achieve thisend.

Sub-section (1) of section 282A provides that where notice orother document is required to be issued by any income-taxauthority under the Act, such notice or document should besigned by that authority in manuscript.

-It is proposed to amend subsection (1) of section 282A so as toprovide that notices and documents required to be issued by

income-tax authority under the Act shall be issued by suchauthority either in paper form or in electronic form inaccordance 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-outto the said section by the Finance Act, 2016, therefore, givesrecognition to the notices served in the e-form. Sub-section (2) ofSection 282A provides that any notice issued by such authority withhis/her name and his/her office provided, as may or otherwise writtenthereon will be deemed to be authenticated and thus validly issued.

27.11. Further, it should be noted that, where the legislature intendedto mandate the affixation of the digital signatures, it has specificallyprovided for the same in the provision itself. This is illustrated inSection 144 B(6)(i)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which reads asunder :

“Section 144B (6)(i)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961

(i)an electronic record shall be authenticated by—

27.12. Similarly, there are other circulars issued by the Directorate ofIncome Tax (Systems) such as the circular titled “Miscellaneous-

Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) Policy-2018-Letter” [F.No.System/ITBA/Digital Signature/16-17/181] dated 16[th]February, 2018recommending 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 Section 148 noticemandatory.

27.13. Along with the provisions relied on by the Revenue it would bepertinent to note that there is note under every e-mail (with thenotices appended as an attachment) sent in these proceedings to theassessees. The note in the end mentions that:

“Note:

-This communication is computer generated and may notcontain signature

-This communication may be treated as compliant with therequirements of Income Tax Rules 127 and 127A

-Signed copy may be sent separately if not already digitallysigned.”

27.14. Further as per the Compliance Affidavit, the ITBA portal wasitself developed for the Department in such way that it makes theaffixation of DSC optional. The notice upon generation may or maynot be affixed with DSC, it would, regardless of whether DSC isattached or not, be sent through the ITBA e-mail system once it hasbeen generated.

27.15. From combined reading of the relevant provisions, theexplanation to the Finance Bill, 2016 and the abovementioned note, it

becomes evident that the affixation of DSC in notices issued underSection 148 of the Act of 1961 has not been made mandatory. As longas the requirements of Section 282A of the Act of 1961 and Rule127A of the IT Rules, are followed the notices would be considered tobe authenticated.

Finding for Notices falling under category ‘B’

27.16. In the present case, the Notices were sent from the designatede-mail ID of the respective JAOs, fulfilling all requirements ofauthentication as per the relevant provisions. There was no doubt inthe mind of the assessees that the Notices were sent by theDepartment. Therefore, the Notices falling under category ‘B’ wouldnot be invalid simply because DSCs were not appended to the Notices.

27.17. The JAO is therefore directed to determine time of despatch asrecorded by the ITBA portal for each of these Notices and the date andtime of despatch as determined by the JAO will be considered to bethe date of issuance.

Illustratively, in W.P.(C) No. 1761 of 2022 for the Notice dated31[st]March 2021, which was not digitally signed and was received on16[th]April 2021, the JAO is directed to determine the date and time ofdespatch as recorded by ITBA portal and consider the same as the dateof 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

transmission under the Act of 1961? - The Court has answered this inthe negative, against the Department.

28.1. With respect to the Notices falling under the category ‘D’ dated31[st]March 2021 and digitally signed on 31[st]March 2021 it has beenstated that, they were not served on the assessees either by e-mail orpost or by courier services as they were just uploaded on the E-filingportals of the assessees. It is the case of the petitioners that no realtime alert was received by the assessee and the Department has notdisputed this fact.

28.2. The mode of service of electronic record, i.e., Notices in thepresent case is provided under Section 282 of the Act of 1961 andRule 127 of the IT Rules. The mode of service of notice,electronically, is prescribed in Section 282 of the Act of 1961, it statesthat service maybe made by transmitting copy in the form ofelectronic record as per chapter IV of the Act of 2000. It also statesthat the CBDT is empowered with the responsibility to make rulesproviding addresses for communication through electronic mail orelectronic mail message. The CBDT vide Rule 127(b) of IT Rulesprescribed email addresses, as made available by the assessees, forcommunication transmitted electronically.

28.3. Thus, there is no dispute that the transmission of an electronicnotice by placing an authenticated copy in the registered account ofthe assessee on the E-filing portal is not specifically prescribed inSection 282 and Rule 127. Instead, it finds mention in the CBDTNotification - No. 4/2017 dated 3.04.2017. The said notification,

provides that, the notices issued by any income tax authority will bevisible to the assessee after logging in under “E-Proceeding” tab in theE-filing portal and that an e-mail “may also” be sent to the registerede-mail address of the assessee. It also mentions that text messagenotifying real time alert to the assessees “may also” be sent to themobile number registered on the E-filing website.

28.4. The “E-Proceedings”, as per the Notification No.4/2017 isoptional. The assessees have to register for the same and can alsochoose to opt out of it by notifying the Department.

28.5. It is unclear to us as to why e-mail based communication ofnotices is made optional in the Notification No. 4/2017, despite itbeing the statutorily prescribed mode of service through electronictransmission. Further, the ITBA portal itself is programmed in such away that it triggers the e-mail software system when notice isgenerated by the JAO and an authenticated copy of the same isthereafter also uploaded in the E-filing portal of the assessee, hencethe Department cannot contend that it had done away with e-mailingof notices issued. Most importantly, the Department has beenconsistently using this mode of e-mail based communication totransmit notices and no reason whatsoever has been provided toexplain as to why these Notices were not e-mailed to the select fewassessees falling under category ‘D’ and was only uploaded on the E-filing portal. It is also unclear as to why the Notices though digitallysigned on 31st March 2021 were never e-mailed to the assessees,because, as per the Compliance Affidavit, upon affixation of DSC by

the JAO the e-mail software system of the ITBA portal would beautomatically triggered.

28.6. It should be noted that, when the legislature decided to includethismodeoftransmissioni.e.placingitontheE-filingportal/registered account of the assessee, as valid service in the Act of1961, it duly included the safeguard of real time alert. For reference,Section 144 B(6)(ii)(a) of the Act of 1961 statutorily recognizes thismode of transmission between the Income Tax authority and theassessee. Section 144 B(6)(ii)(a) reads as under:

“Section 144B (6)(ii)(a)

xxxxxxxxxxxx

(ii)everynoticeororderoranyotherelectroniccommunication shall be delivered to the addressee, being theassessee, by way of—

placing an authenticated copy thereof in the registered accountof the assessee; or.

and followed by 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 beconsidered valid service, the Department should have issued realtimealertasprovisionedintheaforementionedSection144(B)(6)(ii)(a) of the Act of 1961. Since, the prescribed mode of

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 becomeaware of the Notices later and the assessment proceedings in theircases 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 datewhen the E-filing portal is accessed by the assessee, so the first dateon which the Notices were accessed by the assessees is duly available.This date will be considered by the JAOs as the date of issuance ofNotices by the JAOs.

Illustratively, in W.P. (C) 13888 of 2021 the Notice dated 31[st]March 2021 was never served on the assessee, instead the assesseeclaims that he became aware of the same on 23[rd]November, 2021while checking his E-filing portal, the JAO is directed to verify thedate on which the Notice was first viewed by the assessee, andconsider the same as the date of issuance.

Regarding Notices sent to unrelated e-mail addresses

29.In few cases, which do not fall in the categories ‘A to E’ asnoted above, the Notices dated 31st March, 2021 were issued by theITBA e-mail Software system to unrelated e-mail addresses which hasno concern with the petitioner-assessee. In those facts, the Departmentcannot be permitted to contend that there was due despatch of Notice.For constituting ‘due despatch’, notice should be issued to the e-mail

addresses duly recognized in Rule 127, Sub rule 2(b) (i) to (iv), whichreads as under :-

“Rule 127, Sub rule 2(b) (i) to (iv)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(b)forcommunicationsdeliveredortransmitted

electronically—

(i)e-mailaddressavailableintheincome-taxreturnfurnished by the addressee to which the communication relates;or

(ii)the e-mail address available in the last income-tax returnfurnished by the addressee; or

(iii)in the case of addressee being company, e-mail addressof the company as available on the website of Ministry ofCorporate Affairs; or

(iv)any e-mail address made available by the addressee tothe income-tax authority or any person authorised by suchincome-tax authority.”

30.Additionally, it is settled position of law that the notice underSection 148 of the Act of 1961 must be served in accordance with theprocedure established by law, to the correct addressee, otherwise thereassessment proceedings would be invalid in law. [Commissioner ofIncome -Tax (Central) - I v. Chetan Gupta (Supra)] The issuance ofe-mail attaching electronic notice to an unrelated e-mail address doesnot constitute as due despatch and therefore, the Notices cannot besaid to have been issued on 31[st]March, 2021. However, in each ofthese matters, since an authenticated copy of the notice was placed onthe registered account of the assessee on the E-filing portal, as that ishow the petitioners learnt about the notices, these notices will be held

to have been issued on the date on which the Notices were first viewedby the assessees on their E-filing portal.

31.For the reasons and principles that we have laid down, wedispose of these Writ Petitions with the following directions:

31.1. Category ‘A’: The Notices falling under category ‘A’, whichwere digitally signed on or after 1[st]of April, 2021, are held to bear thedate on which the said Notices were digitally signed and not 31[st]March 2021. The said petitions are disposed of with the direction thatthe said Notices are to be considered as show-cause-notices underSection 148A (b) of the Act as per the directions of the apex Court inthe Ashish Agarwal (Supra) judgment.

31.2. Category ‘B’: The Notices falling under category ‘B’ whichwere sent through the registered e-mail ID of the respective JAOs,though not digitally signed are held to be valid. The said petitions aredisposed of with the direction to the JAOs to verify and determine thedate and time of its despatch as recorded in the ITBA portal inaccordance with the law laid down in this judgment as the date ofissuance. If the date and time of despatch recorded is on or after 1[st]ofApril, 2021, the Notices are to be considered as show-cause-noticesunder Section 148A (b) as per the directions of the apex Court in theAshish Agarwal (Supra) judgment.

31.3. Category ‘C’: The petitions challenging Notices falling undercategory ‘C’ which were digitally signed on 31[st]of March 2021, aredisposed of with the direction to the JAOs to verify and determine thedate and time of despatch as recorded in the ITBA portal in

accordance with the law laid down in this judgment as the date ofissuance. If the date and time of despatch recorded is on or after 1[st]ofApril, 2021, the Notices are to be considered as show-cause-noticesunder Section 148A (b) as per the directions of the apex Court in theAshish Agarwal (Supra) judgment.

31.4. Category ‘D’: The petitions challenging Notices falling undercategory ‘D’ which were only uploaded in the E-filing portal of theassessees without any real time alert, are disposed of with the directionto the JAOs to determine the date and time when the assessees viewedthe Notices in the E-filing portal, as recorded in the ITBA portal andconclude such date as the date of issuance in accordance with the lawlaid down in this judgment. If such date of issuance is determined tobe on or after 1[st]of April 2021, the Notices will be construed as issuedunder Section 148A (b) of the Act of 1961 as per the Ashish Agarwal(Supra) judgment.

31.5. Category ‘E’: The petitions challenging Notices falling undercategory ‘E’ which were manually despatched, are disposed of withthe direction to the JAOs to determine in accordance with the law laiddown in this judgment, the date and time when the Notices weredelivered to the post office for despatch and consider the same as dateof issuance. If the date and time of despatch recorded is on or after 1[st]of April, 2021, the Notices are to be construed as show-cause-noticesunder Section 148A (b) as per the directions of the apex Court in theAshish Agarwal (Supra) judgment.

31.6. Notices sent to unrelated e-mail addresses: The petitionschallenging Notices which were sent to unrelated e-mail addresses aredisposed of with the direction the JAOs to verify the date on which theNotice was first viewed by the assessee on the E-filing portal andconsider the same as the date of issuance. If such date of issuance isdetermined to be on or after 01[st]April, 2021, the Notices will beconstrued as issued under Section 148A (b) of the Act of 1961 as perjudgment in Ashish Agarwal (Supra).

31.7. We may note that in the writ petitions, the petitioners haveraised additional defenses to challenge the impugned Notices. Suchadditional defenses have not been considered by this Court and thepetitioners shall be at liberty to raise all such additional defenses asavailable in law.

31.8. We are conscious that the time granted by the Supreme Court inAshish Agarwal to the Department has since expired on 3[rd]June, 2022however, the proceedings in the present writ petitions were stayed on24[th]March, 2022 until the pronouncement of this judgment. Therefore,we grant the JAOs in the first instance eight (8) weeks time fromtoday to determine the date of issuance of the Notices as per the lawlaid down in this judgment.

31.9. The Notices which in accordance with the law laid down in thisjudgment has been verified by the JAOs to have been issued on orafter 01[st]April 2021 and until 30[th]June, 2021 shall be deemed to havebeen issued under Section 148A of the Act of 1961 as substituted bythe Finance Act, 2021 and construed to be show-cause notices in terms

of Section 148A(b) as per the judgment of the apex Court in AshishAgarwal (Supra) and the JAOs shall thereafter follow the procedureset down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment which reads asfollows:

“26.In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. The impugned commonjudgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabadinW.T.No.524/2021andotheralliedtaxappeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under : -

(i)The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees whichwere issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which were thesubject matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courtsshall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act assubstituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The assessing officer shall, withinthirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information andmaterial relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assesees can reply to theshow-cause notices within two weeks thereafter;were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which were thesubject matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courtsshall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act assubstituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The assessing officer shall, withinthirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information andmaterial relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assesees can reply to theshow-cause notices within two weeks thereafter;

(ii)The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the priorapproval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensedwith as one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issuedunder section 148 of the unamended Act from 1-4-2021 till date, includingthose which have been quashed by the High Courts.approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensedwith as one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issuedunder section 148 of the unamended Act from 1-4-2021 till date, includingthose which have been quashed by the High Courts.

Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the priorapproval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the concernedAssessing Officers to hold any enquiry, if required;

(iii)The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of section148A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; Thereafter afterfollowing the procedure as required under section 148A may issue noticeunder section 148 (as substituted);148A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; Thereafter afterfollowing the procedure as required under section 148A may issue noticeunder section 148 (as substituted);

(iv)All defences which may be available to the assesses including thoseavailable under section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentionswhich may be available to the concerned assessees and Revenue under theFinance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available.available under section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentionswhich may be available to the concerned assessees and Revenue under theFinance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available.

32.With the aforesaid directions, present writ petitions and pendingapplications stand disposed of.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

MANMOHAN, J

27[th]SEPTEMBER, 2022j/msh