SHWETA KEDIA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, all these matters are heard at this stage.

(2.) Whether the explanations contained in the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short 'the CBDT') circular dtd. 31/3/2021 and 27/4/2021 are legal and valid? After hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the Department of Income Tax as well as the counsel appearing for the asseessee, the Co-ordinate Bench disposed of the identical D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.969/2022 titled as "Sudesh Tanesh Vs. Income Tax Officer" along-with the connected matters vide judgment dtd. 27/1/2022 by observing that:- "36. It can thus be seen that original provisions upon their substitution stood repealed for all purposes and had no existence after introduction of the substituting provisions. We may refer to Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which provides inter-alia that where the State Act or Central Act or regulation repeals any enactment then unless a different intention appears repeal shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect or affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder. Under the circumstances after substitution unless there is any intention discernible in the scheme of statute either pre-existing or newly introduced, the substituted provisions would not survive.

(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties and we are in full agreement with the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja (Supra). We see no reason to take a different view.