Nagpal vs Income Tax Officer

ORDER

“7.

The l earn ed AO was not persuad ed with the explanati on pr ovid ed by the pet itioner a nd passed an ord er dated 29.07.2022 under S ectio n 148A (d) of the Act , ho lding that it was a fit case for reop ening the assessment proceedi ngs und er Sect ion 147/1 48 of the A ct. The said ord er was issued with t he a pprova l of the C ommissio ner of Inc om e Tax (Exempt ion) [C IT(E)] on an assumption th at the CIT (E) was a specified au thority und er the provis ions of S ect i on 151 of the A ct.

8.

The AO issu ed a not ice dat ed 2 9.07 .202 2 unde r S ecti on 148 of th e Act accompan ied with the ord er da ted 29.07.2022 passed under S ect ion 1 48A (d) of the A ct. It is th e petit ion er’s c ase that the said no tice is barr ed by limitat ion.

9.

It is material t o n ote t hat the original notice un der S ection 148 of the A ct [deemed to be a show cause no tice und er Section 148A (b) of the A ct in terms of th e decisi on in th e case of Un ion of India & Ors . v. A shish Agarwal (supra)] was issue d on 28.06.2021, th at is, two days prior to the exp ir y o f the limit at ion period as ext end ed b y v irtu e of the Taxation and O ther Laws (R elaxation a nd Am end men t of C ertain Provisio ns) A ct, 2020 [TOL A]. Th us, t he A O had tw o days t o issue t he notice unde r Section 148 of t he Act after rec eiving th e reply dated 08. 06.2022 fil ed by th e petit ioner. Since t h e said p eriod w as less than seven days, th e AO h ad, by virt ue of the fou rth provis o to S ect ion 149 (1) of the Act, seven da ys t o pass an order under S ection 14 8A (d) of the A ct (which was necessari ly requi red to accompany a n otice under S ecti on 148 of th e A ct). T h e said perio d expi red o n 1 6.06.2022. Ther efo re, the order pa ssed un der Section 1 48A(d) of t he Act wa s beyond th e peri od of limitat ion .

10.

The imp ugned n otice is also liable t o be set aside on th e gro und that it was issued wit hou t the approval o f th e au thority specifi ed under Section 151 of t he Act . S ince th e imp ugned noti ce w as issued beyond the peri od of t hree years f rom the en d of t he relevant assessment year, th u s, in t erms of Section 151(i i) of the Act, the same was requi red to b e a ppro ved by th e P rincipa l Chief C om missi oner or Pr incipal D irect or G eneral or wh ere t her e is no such authori ty, by C hief C om missioner o r D i rec tor General. The det ermin ation of th e sp ecified authorit y for gr ant of app rova l und er Section 151 o f the A ct depend s on whether th e not ice under Section 148 of th e A ct has been issued aft er the expiry of three years from the end of th e relevant assessment year or w ithin th e sa id per iod.

11.

Sect ion 151 of t he A ct ( as amend ed by the F inan ce Act, 202 1) as in force o n t he date of issuance of notice r ead as und er:

“151 . S anct ion for issue of notic e.- S pecified authorit y for th e purp oses o f sec tion 148 and secti on 148A shall be,-

(i)

Principal C omm issioner or P rincipal Directo r or Com missi oner or D irecto r, if t hree years or less th an t hree years have elapsed fr om the end of the relevant assessment year;

(ii)

Principal C hief Com missioner o r Prin cipal D irect or General or where there is n o P rincipa l Chief Com missi oner or Principal Director Gener al, Chief Com missi oner o r D irect or Gen eral, if more tha n th ree years have elap sed from the end of th e relevant assessment year. ”

12.

The questi on w het her the sanct ion in respect of notices th at were issu ed d uring the period of limit at ion as ext en ded by TOLA requi red t he pri o r sanction i n terms of S ection 151 of the Act , as in force aft er 31.03.20 21 or as in force p ri or to the said da te, has fell for consi d er ation of this court in several cases including T wylig ht In frastru ct ure Pvt . Ltd. v. Inco me Tax Officer Ward 25 3 Delhi & Ors.: Neutral Citat ion N o.2024:D HC :25 9-DB and A bhi nav Jind al HU F v. Incom e Tax Officer Ward 5 4(1) Delhi & Ors.: Neutral Citat ion No.: 202 4:DHC :7238-DB. Th is court had h eld th at TOLA would have no releva nce fo r d etermining t he sp ecified auth ority whose approval w as m andatory un der S ection 151 of th e A ct for issuance of a notice u nder Sect ion 1 48 of the A ct. We consid er it ap posit e t o refer to the following ext ract from the decision of this court in Abhina v Jind al HUF v. Inco me Tax Officer Ward 54(1) Del hi & Ors. (supra). T he same is set out bel ow:

“17.

A s was noticed in the introduct ory p art s of this decisio n, t he resp on dent s had, contrary to the above , argued that once a notice fo r reass essment co mes to b e issued after the expiry of fo ur y ear s by virtu e of t he extended period of time m ade availa ble b y TOLA, all th e imp ugned not ices would fall within the ken of sub-section (2) of th e pre -am endment S ect ion 151 a nd conseq uent ly t he sanction and approva l accord ed b y th e JCIT would be in ac cord ance wit h law. *** *** ***

38.

It would the ref ore be who lly incorrect to read TO LA as intending t o amend the d istribution of power or t he categoriz ation envisaged a nd prescrib ed by S ection 151. The add itional t ime tha t th e said statu te provided to an au thority can not possibly be constr ued as altering or modifying t he hierarchy or the structure set up b y S ection 15 1 of t he Act . The issue of approval would sti ll be liable to be an swered based on whet her t he reassessment was com menced aft er or wit hin a period of four years f rom t h e end of the rel evant A Y o r a s per th e am end ed regime dependent upon whether action was being propos ed wi t hin three years of the en d of t he relevant A Y or thereaft er. T he bi furcat ion of th os e po wers would co n tinue un altered a nd unaffected by TO LA .

39.

The fallacy of the submission addressed by th e resp ondents becom es even m ore ev id ent whe n we wei gh in considerat ion the fact that even if the reassessment action w ere init iat ed, as per the extended TO LA ti melin es, an d thus after the p eriod o f fou r years, S ection 15 1 incorp orated adequate m easures t o deal wit h su ch a co ntin gency and in una mbiguous terms identified t he au thority wh ich was to be moved for th e purposes of sanct ion and app roval. S ection 151 distributed the p owers of approval am ongst a set of specified aut horit ies based upon the la pse of tim e between the end of the relevant A Y and t he dat e when reassessment was proposed . Thus even if t he reassessment was propos ed t o be ini t iat ed wit h the aid of TOL A aft er t he expiry of four years from th e end of th e re levant A Y, the aut horit y statut ori ly emp owered t o confer approval wo uld be t he Principal Chi ef Com missi oner / Chief C omm issioner /Prin cipal Com missi oner /C o mmissioner. It w ou ld only be in a cas e where t he reasses sm ent w as p ropos ed to be initiated befo re the exp iry of fou r years f r om the en d of th e relevant A Y t hat approval c ould h ave been a cco rded b y th e J CIT. S imila r would be th e po sition wh ich would em erg e if t he actions were t ested o n th e basis of th e am end ed Sect ion 151 and wh ich divides the power of sanction amongst two set s of au thoriti es based on whether reassessm ent is c omm enced withi n three yea rs or thereaft er. ” 13. In Twylight Infrast ructu re P vt . Ltd. v. Income Ta x Officer Ward 2 5 3 D elhi & Ors.(supra), a Coordina te Bench of this court examine d the validity of initiation of reassessment pr oc eedings, in ca ses where the incom e all eged to have esca ped assessment was R s.50,00,0 00/- or less. In th e afore said context, this court also considered th e q uestion as to th e specified au thority, whose p ri or ap proval was requi red and hel d as under: “10. A s indicat ed above, t he specif i ed authorit y changes depend ing on the t ime lim it prescribed in section 1 51 o f th e A ct. It is on this a ccou nt that there is a linkage between ruling ren dered i n Gan esh Dass Khanna [Ganesh Dass K han na v. ITO, ( 2024) 460 ITR 546 (D elhi) ; 20 23 SCC On Line Del 7286; 2 023 : D HC : 8187-DB.] and the instan t matt ers.

11.

It may also b e noted that i n Ganesh Da ss Khann a [Ganesh D ass K hanna v. ITO, (2 024) 460 ITR 546 (Delhi); 202 3 S CC OnLi ne Del 72 86; 2023 : D HC : 8187-DB .], we had reco rded t he st and of the R evenue th at the issu e concerning limitat ion and the specified authority ar e “intert wined”. F or convenience , th e relevan t part of th e j udgm ent is ex tracted hereaft er (page 567 of 460 ITR): “24. On b ehalf of the R evenue, t h e fo ll owing broad subm issions were made:… …

(viii)

Bot h und er t he u namended 1961 Act an d amended 196 1 Act , t he issue con ce rning l imit ation is inextricably int ert wined w ith tw o aspects:

(a)

First, t he rank of the au tho rity g rant ing ap proval/san ct ion for t rigge ring reassessmen t pr oceed ings.

(b)

S econ d, the quantum of income whic h h as escaped assessment.” (Emphasis is o urs)

12.

C learly, th e R evenue advanced the argu men t of int erl in kag e b etw een limit at ion and the ascert ainm ent of th e specified auth ority due to t he p lain languag e of th e am end ed sect ion 1 51 of the Act. Section 151 , when read alo ngside t he first provi so t o s ectio n 148, b rings th e aspect of inext ricable l inkage to t he for e.

12.1.

C lauses (i) and (ii) of section 1 51 of the am ended A ct (which has been ext ra cted hereinabove) c learl y specify the author ity wh ose appr ova l can trigger th e reassessment proceedi ngs. Thus, if t hree (3) year s or less h ave e lapsed from the end of t he relevan t assessment year, the specified authorit y who would gr ant approval fo r i nitiation of reasses sment proceedings will be t he Pri nci pal C omm issioner or Principal D irecto r or C ommissio ner or Di rect or. H owe ver, if m ore th an th ree (3) years f rom th e end of the relevant assessmen t year h ave elapsed, the specified au thority fo r acco rd ing ap proval for the reassessment shall be the Princip al Chief C om missioner or P rincipal Directo r Gen eral or , where the re is n o Principal C hief Commission er or Principal D irecto r General , Chief Comm issi oner or Di recto r Gen era l.

12.2.

That t he approval is man dat ory is pla inly eviden t on p erusal of t he first proviso a ppen ded to section 148 of t he A ct . The said proviso, at t he risk o f rep eti tion, reads as foll ows:

“Pr ovided that no no tice u nder th is section shall b e issued unl ess t here is informat ion wit h t he Assessing Officer which su ggests that the income charg eabl e to ta x has escaped assessm ent in th e case of the a ss essee for th e relevant assessment year an d the A ssessing Officer has obtained prio r approval o f the specifi ed auth orit y to issue such n otice.”

12.3.

In these ca ses, the re is no dis put e th at al thou gh th ree (3) yea rs had ela psed from th e end of t he relevan t assessment year, t he a ppro val was sought from the au thorities specifie d in clause (i), as against clau se (ii) of secti on 15 1.

12.4.

B efore us, th e counsel for the R evenue con tinue t o hold t his position. The only libert y t hat they seek is that if, based on the jud gment in Ganesh Dass K hanna [Ganesh D ass Khanna v. I TO, (2024 ) 46 0 ITR 546 (D elhi); 2023 SCC O nLin e Del 728 6; 202 3: DHC : 81 87-DB .], the impugned ord ers and n oti ces are set aside, libe rty b e given to the R evenue to commence th e reassessment proc eedings afresh.

13.

Therefore, h avin g regard t o t he aforesaid , th e imp ugned not ices and ord ers in e ach of t he a bove-capt ioned wr it peti t ions ar e qu ashed on the gr ound that th ere is no ap pr oval of t he spec i fied au thority, as indi cated in secti on 151(ii) of the Act. The direction is issued wit h t he caveat that the R evenue will h ave lib ert y to t ak e st eps, if deemed n ecessary , al b eit as per law.”

14.

In J M Financial & Investm ent s C onsultancy S ervices Privat e L imit ed v. AC IT, C ircle 3(2)(1) & O rs., W.P. No. 105 0/2020, decided on 04.04. 2022, t he Bo mbay High Court had m ade observat ions to th e effect t hat even i f the t ime t o issue not ice m ay have been ext ende d b y T OLA , the sam e would not am end the p rovisi ons of S ection 151 of t he Act. The rele vant ext rac t of the said decis i on is set out be low:

“5.

R espon dent s h ave relied upon a lett er dated 18t h March 2021 issued by one Income Tax Office r, who has given an o pin ion to t he A dditional Commi ssione r o f Inco me Tax that in view of th e Taxati on and othe r L aws (Relaxation of Ce rt ain Pro vis ion s) A ct, 2020 (Relaxati on A ct), lim itat ion, in ter alia, unde r pr ovisio ns of Secti on 151 (1) and S ect ion 151(2 ), whic h were o riginally expirin g on 31st March 2020 stand exten ded t o 3 1st March 2 021. A ccord ing to the Inco me Tax O fficer, in view of th e ab ove , A ssessment Year 2015-2016 which falls under the cat egory within fou r years as on 3 1st March 20 20, the statutory ap proval for issuance o f notice und er Sect ion 148 o f the A ct for t he A ssessmen t Year 2015-2 016 m ay be given by the R ange Head as per th e said p rovis ions . Mr. S harma clarif i es t hat t he Incom e Tax Offic er is only co nveying t he view of t he Princip al Com missi oner of I ncome Tax b ecause this l ett er has been issued on t he letterhead of P rin ci pal Com missioner of Incom e Tax.

6.

Even for a mom ent we agree with the view expressed by the Principal Com missioner of In co me Tax, still it ap plies to only cases where the lim it ation was expi ring on 31st March 202 0. In the case at hand, th e assessment year i s 20 15-201 6 and, th erefo re, the si x years lim itation w ill expire only on 31st March 2022. Certain ly, th erefo re, t he R elaxat ion Act provisions ma y not b e appl icable. In any event, the time to issue not ice may have been ex tended but th at would not amount t o am end ing the provisions o f S ection 151 of t he A ct.

7.

In our vi ew , si nce fou r years had expired fr om th e en d of th e relevant assessme nt year, as pro vided unde r S ection 151(1 ) o f the Act, it is o nly t he Principal Chief Com missi oner or Chief C omm issioner or Pri ncipal Com missi oner or C om missioner who c ould have accorded th e approval a nd not the Additio nal Comm issioner of Inco me Ta x. O n th is g roun d alon e, w e will ha ve t o set aside the n otice dated 31st March 202 1 issued under S ection 148 of the A ct, which is imp ugned i n this petit ion. In view t hereof, the consequent orders and notices wil l also have to go.” [em phasis added]

15.

In a latte r decisio n in Siemens F inan cial Services P vt. Ltd. v. Deput y C om missioner of In come-T ax & Ors.:2 023 S CC On Line Bo m 2822, the B ombay High Co urt re iterated th e said view i n t he follow ing word s:

“24.

A s per section 151 of the A ct, the "sp ec ified au thority" w ho has to grant his sanctio n for t he purpos es of sect i on 1 48 and sect ion 1 48A is the Principa l Chief Com missi oner o r Principal Dir ecto r General or wher e th ere is n o P rinci pal C hief Co mmissioner or Princip al Di recto r G ene ral, t he Ch ief Com missione r or D irector General if mo re t h an t hree years h ave elapsed from th e en d of t he relev ant assessmen t year. Th e p res en t petit ion r elates t o th e assessment year 2016-17, and as th e im pugned o rd er an d impugned notice are issue d beyon d the pe ri od of three yea rs which elapsed on March 31, 2 020 the app roval as co ntemplated in sectio n 15 1(i i) of the Act w ould ha ve to be ob tained which has n ot been do ne b y th e A ssessi ng Officer. The imp ugned not ice mentions that the prior appr oval has been tak en of th e "Pr incipal Commissione r of Income -ta x-8" ("PCIT-8") which is bad in law as the approval shou ld have been ob tained in t erms of sect ion 151(ii) and not secti on 151 (i) of t he A ct an d t he Principa l Commissioner of Inco me- tax-8 cannot be t he specified au tho rity as per section 15 1 o f the A ct. F urth er, even in the affida vit-in-reply, th e Department h as accept ed that the approval ob tained is of the "P rincipal C omm issioner of Incom e-ta x-8" and, he nce, such an approval would be bad in law .

25.

The Taxat ion and Other Laws (R elaxat ion a nd A mendment of Certain P rovisions) A ct, enacted on S eptem ber 29 , 2020 an d came int o fo rc e on March 31, 202 0 ([202 0] 428 ITR ( St .) 29 ). It, inter a lia, p rovided for a relaxati on of certain pro visi ons of the Income-ta x A ct, 1961. Where any time lim it fo r compl eti on or comp liance of an action such a s complet ion of an y pr oceed ings or passing of any ord er or issuan ce o f an y notice f ell between t he period March 20 , 2 020 t o Decemb er 31, 2 020, t he time limit for complet ion o f such action stood extended to March 3 1 , 2021. Thus, th e Taxat ion and O ther Laws (R elaxation and Am end ment of Certain Prov isi ons) Act o nly seeks to extend the period of lim itat ion and d oes not affect th e scop e of secti on 151 .

26.

The Assessing Office r cannot rel y on the pro visions of the Taxation and Othe r L aws (Relaxatio n and A mendment o f C ert ain Provisi ons) Act and the notificatio ns issued thereu nder as section 15 1 has been am end ed b y the Fi nance A ct, 202 1 an d t he p rov isions of th e a mended sect i on would have t o be complied with b y th e Assessing Officer, w ith eff ect f rom A pril 1, 2021. Hence, the Assessing O fficer cannot seek t o ta ke t he shelter of t he Taxat ion a nd Ot her Laws (R elaxat ion and A mendment of C ert ain Provision s) Act as a su bord inat e legislatio n cannot override an y statute enact ed b y Parliament . Further , the notifica tio n extending the dates from March 31 , 2 02 1 till Ju ne 30 , 2021 cannot appl y on ce th e F inance A ct , 2021 is in e xistence. Th e sancti on of the spe cifi ed a utho rit y has t o be obtain ed in accordance with the law exist ing w hen the sanctio n is ob tained and, therefore, the sa nction is req uired to b e ob tained by a pplying the amended section 151(i i) of t he A ct and since the sanction h as been obt ained in term s of section 151(i) of the Act , the impug ned order and imp ugned not ice are b ad in law and should b e quashed an d set aside. ”

“13.

The o rders and not ices a re challenged herein no t on th e groun d t hat the t ime limi t under pre-am ended section 1 49 d oes n ot app ly, but on t he ground that sanction w as not g rant ed by the specified aut hor ity. Therefore, it remain s to be conside red as to whether t he ap plicati on of the p roviso t o section 149 has the effect of incorp orat ing b y reference t o p re-a mended secti on 151 . In ord er t o substan tiat e the cont ent ion t hat pre-am end ed section 151 gets in co rporat ed by reference , learn ed standing cou nsel reli ed o n sub-sect ion (2) to the pr e-am end ed secti on 149. It should be noti ced that the pr ovis o to sub-section (1) of th e amended sect ion 149 do es n ot even inc orp orate th e whole of pre-am ended section 1 49. It m erel y mak es the time limit p rescrib e d th erein applicabl e t o the issua nce of not ices fo r reassessment in respect of any assessm ent yea r beginnin g before A pril 1, 2021. A fortio ri the provis o cert ainl y does n ot incorpo rate pre-amende d section 151 by ref erence and make it applicable.

14.

The next question t o be examined is the im pact of th e Taxation and Oth er Laws (Relaxati on and A mendment o f C ertain Provisions) Act, 2020. U ndou btedly, th e Taxation and Oth er Laws (Relaxati on an d A men dment of C ertain Pr ovisions) A ct , 2 020 extended the t ime lim its under spe cified enactm ents, includi ng th e Incom e-t ax A ct . A s per clause (a)(ii) of sub-section(1) of sect ion 3 there of, t i me limi ts for gran t of san ct ion or approval were a lso ex tended . Sin ce th e petit ioner d oes not challenge the sanction with respec t to t he tim e l imit, clause (a) of sub-sect ion (1) of secti on 3 is im mat erial. I ndeed, th e Taxat i on and O ther Laws (Relaxation and A mendm ent of Certa in Provisi ons) A ct, 202 0, w hich extends the time l imits for comp letion of specified tasks up to March 31, 20 21, itself becomes irre levant because of the nature of the challenge in th ese writ p eti tion s.

15.

In S iemen s Financial S ervices [Siem ens Fina ncial S ervices Pvt. Lt d. v. D y. C IT, (2023 ) 457 ITR 647 (Bom ); 2023 S CC OnLine Bo m 2822; (202 3) 15 4 ta xmann.com 159 (Bo m).] , the Division Bench of th e B om bay High C ou rt concluded, in substantially simila r facts and circum stances, t hat the amend ed sectio n 15 1 an d no t t he prea men ded section 1 51 would app ly. F or reasons set out ab ove, I concur with t he conclusion in S iem ens F inan cia l Services [S iem ens F inancial S ervices Pvt. Ltd . v. D y. CIT, (2023) 457 ITR 647 (B om); 2 023 S CC OnLine Bom 2822; (20 23) 154 t axm ann .com 159 (Bom ).] and Ganesh Das Khanna v. ITO [(2024) 460 ITR 546 (D elhi) ; (2 02 3) 6 HCC (D el) 516; (20 23) 156 ta xmann.com 417 (D elhi).] as subse quen tly foll owed in Tw ylight Infrastru ct ure [Tw yligh t Infr astruct ure Pvt. L td. v. ITO, ( 2024) 463 ITR 702 (D elhi ); 202 4 S CC O nLin e Del 33 0.]. C onsequently, the validit y of sanction for issuing the orders under section 148 A(d) a nd the notices und er secti on 148 should be test ed wit h reference t o am end ed section 151. If so t ested, it is evi dent that sanction was n ot granted by an aut hority spec ified under clause (ii) of sec tio n 151. Hence, the orde rs unde r section 1 48A(d) and th e noti ces und er section 148 ar e quashed. As a coro llary , the draft assessment ord ers und er secti on 144B /1 44C cannot surviv e an d are also quashed.

16.

These wr it petitions a re all ow ed on t he above term s. Th ere will b e n o o rder as t o cost s. Consequen tly , th e connected miscella neo us petit ions are als o cl osed.”

“2.

In each of these cases, th e challeng es t o a notice issued by the Income- tax D epartmen t (hereinafter “D epartment ”) und er sect ion 1 48 of t he Income-tax A ct, 196 1, (IT A ct) as it st ood pri or to th e amendment by th e Finance Act of 202 1 with effect f ro m April 1, 2021 . In ot her words, i n each of th ese cases, t he n otice under section 14 8 o f the Inco me-tax A ct h as been issued p rior to April 1, 2021. In man y of them, i n fact , th e dat e of th e notice is March 31, 2021.

3.

In each of these cases, the rel evan t assessment yea r (AY) in rel ati on to which such not ice ha s bee n issued is more than four years pri or to the date of th e reop ening, i.e., it is bey ond four years f rom the exp iry of t h e assessment year in question and is clea rly t her ef o re, ti me barred in terms of the first pro viso t o section 147 of the I ncome-tax Act .

4.

The st and of the R evenue th at in view of t h e notificatio ns issued by the Central Governm ent in terms of the pro visions of t he Taxati on and Other L aws (Relaxation and A mendm ent of Certa in Provisi ons) A ct, 202 0, the said time limits stood ext end ed is clearly unt ena ble as t hose not ifications were issued to dea l wit h th e sit uat ion arisin g from the a men dment to the Incom e-ta x A ct by t he F inance Act, 2021 wi th effect f rom Ap ril 1, 2021 whereas i n t hese ca ses the n otices w ere issue d pr ior to A pri l 1 , 20 21.

5.

This court h ad a n occasion in sim il ar circumstances to quash an identical notice un de r sect ion 148 of t h e Inco me-t ax Act by its ord er dated Nov ember 2 0, 2019 in Writ P etiti on (C) N o. 7 618 of 2009 and which ord er stoo d confirm ed by thi s court by t he dismissal of th e Departm ent's revi e w petitio n, i. e., RV WPET No. 188 of 202 0 by the o rder da ted December 3, 2021 which re ads as under:

“1.

Alt hou gh th e point m ade by t he Revenue in this rev iew petit i on is that this court in its order dated Novem ber 20, 20 19 erred in drawing a d istinction bet ween an Additional Com missioner a nd Commissioner in term s of their auth ority, th e po int involved was that for the purpos e o f section 1 51(1) o f t he Income -ta x Act , 1961 since the reopening of the assessment was beyond four years, it had to have the prior approva l of the Com missi oner of Incom e-t ax, a nd the re was no such approval in the p resent ca se.

2.

C onse quen tly, no ground is made ou t for review ing the or der dated November 20, 2019 in Writ P etition (C) No. 7618 of 2009.

3.

The r evi ew pet itio n is dismissed.”

6.

Indeed in the n otice issued unde r section 148 of th e Inco me-t ax Act on March 31, 2021 wh ich has been challenged in Writ Pet ition (C ) No. 418 26 of 20 21 it has been stated that the notices had been issued after ob taining “neces sary satisfact ion of t he Join t Com missi oner of In come-tax Range-I, Cut tack ” whereas th e Offi ce r aut hori zed t o r eco rd th e necessar y satisfact ion had t o be t he C hief Commi ssion er of Inco me-t ax/C omm issioner of Income-t ax.

7.

F or all the af oresaid r eason s, in each of t he abov e cases, t he im pugned not ice unde r sect ion 148 of t he Inco me-t ax A ct is hereb y quashed. T he writ petiti ons ar e all owed, but in th e ci rcum stances, w ith no ord er as t o costs.”