Delhi High Court – Orders
Delhi Auto And General Finance Private … vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 28 March, 2025
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3654/2023
DELHI AUTO AND GENERAL FINANCE
PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Sumit Lalchandani, Mr Salil
Kapoor, Mr Tarun Chanana, Mr
Shivam Yadav and Ms Ananya
Kapoor, Advocates.
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CIRCLE 7-1, DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Vipul Agrawal, senior standing
counsel with Ms Sakashi Shairwal
and Mr Akshat Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
ORDER
% 28.03.2025
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a
notice dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 [the Act] in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2013-14. It is the
petitioner’s case that the said notice has been issued beyond the period of
limitation.
2. The Assessing Officer [AO] had issued a notice under Section 148 of
the Act in respect of AY 2013-14 on 30.06.2021. Although, the said notice
was issued after 31.03.2021, it was issued in accordance with the statutory
regime of reassessment (Section 147 to 151 of the Act) as was in force prior
to 01.04.2021.
3. The petitions challenging the said notices were allowed by this court,
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2025 at 21:28:01
in Mon Mohan Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.:
Neutral Citation No.: 2021:DHC:4181-DB. Several other High Courts had
also quashed similar notices. The orders passed by this court and other
Courts setting aside such notices were appealed by the Revenue before the
Supreme Court. In Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal: (2023) 1 SCC
617, the Supreme Court passed directions under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, directing that such notices issued under Section 148 of
the Act be construed as the notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act. The
AO was also directed to provide the information required to accompany
notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
4. In the present case, the AO provided such information by issuing a
notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 01.06.2022. The petitioner was
granted time till 16.06.2022 to respond to the said notice. The petitioner
furnished his response on 11.06.2022.
5. Since the notice under Section 148 of the Act – which was directed to
be construed as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in terms of the
decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal
(supra)] – was issued on the last date of expiry of limitation as extended by
virtue of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain
Provisions) Act, 2020, the AO had no time available for issuance of a notice
under Section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the Fourth Proviso to Section
149(1) of the Act is applicable and the AO had a further period of seven
days for issuance a notice under Section 148 of the Act. However, the
notice was not issued within the said period of seven days; that is on or
before 23.06.2022. In view of the above, the present notice has been issued
beyond the period of limitation.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2025 at 21:28:01
6. It is material to note that the AO had also issued another notice dated
27.06.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act and the petitioner was
provided fifteen days’ time to respond to the same. The said period expired
on 12.07.2022. Even if the period of limitation is reckoned from the end of
the period of fifteen days provided to the petitioner for responding to the
notice dated 27.06.2022, the said period would expire on 19.07.2022.
7. The aforesaid issue is covered by the decision of this Court in Ram
Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.: Neutral
Citation No.: 2025:DHC:547-DB. The learned counsel appearing for the
Revenue does not dispute the same.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned
notice and all proceedings emanating therefrom are set aside.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
TEJAS KARIA, J
MARCH 28, 2025
RK Click here to check corrigendum, if any
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/04/2025 at 21:28:02
[ad_1]
Source link