Roopa Goyal vs Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1) on 30 July, 2025

0
9

Delhi High Court

Roopa Goyal vs Income Tax Officer Ward 28(1) on 30 July, 2025

Author: V. Kameswar Rao

Bench: V. Kameswar Rao

                          $~59
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          %                                                  Date of Decision : 30.07.2025

                          +     W.P.(C) 6797/2023 CM APPL. 26546/2023
                                ROOPA GOYAL                                                        .....Petitioner
                                                Through: Mr. Kapil Goel, Adv.

                                                      versus

                                INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(1)                .....Respondent
                                             Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr
                                                       Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit
                                                       Pareek, JSC, Mr. Surya Jindal, Advs.
                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

                          V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition relates to the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 and has
been filed with the following prayers:

“A. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ
and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned initial notice u/s
148 dated 23.06.2021 which is illegal , unlawful , lacking jurisdiction and
time barred; (violation of sec. 153C and CBDT instruction no. 1/2011)
B. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ
and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned subsequent
notice(s) dated 31.05.2022 being illegal , time barred, and lacking
jurisdiction and wrongly converted to new law misinterpreting Hon’ble
Apex court decision in Ashish Aggarwal case 444 ITR 1, and violation of
sec. 153C and CBDT instruction no. 1/2011)
C. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ
and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned order passed u/s
148A(d) dated 22.07.2022 being in violation of mandate of 1961 Act and
is totally contrary to law and time barred u/s 149(1) of 1961 Act and
based on totally wrong and factually incorrect information as supplied u/s

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AWANISH W.P. (C) 6797/2023 Page 1 of 5
CHANDRA MISHRA
Signing Date:11.08.2025
17:21:52
148A(b) on 31.05.2022, totally bereft of any semblance of worthwhile
reasoning ; violation of sec. 153C and CBDT instruction no.1/2011)
D. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ
and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned notice u/s 148
dated 22.07.2022 being time barred , jurisdictionally flawed and based on
unlawful and illegal order passed u/s 148A(d);
E. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ
and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned proceedings u/s
148/148A for AY 2015-2016.

F. Issue of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, prohibition or any other writ
and/or order and or directions quashing the impugned proceedings u/s
148/148A in violation of sec. 151A/cbdt notification
G. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or an order prohibiting the
operation of the impugned proceedings u/s 148, as deemed fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the present case as initiated by the
respondent u/s 148/148A of the 1961 Act;

2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this
petition shall be covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024)469 ITR 46 (SC) as
followed by this Court in the case of Makemytrip India Private Limited vs
DCIT W.P.(C
) 2557/2023 and also the subsequent judgments.

3. Suffice It to state in Makemytrip India Private Limited vs DCIT
W.P.(C
) 2557/2023 this Court has stated as under:

8. “In a subsequent decision in Union of India and Others v.

Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754, the Supreme Court considered the
manner of applicability of the provisions of Taxation and Other
Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020

[TOLA]. During the said proceedings it was conceded on behalf of
the Revenue that TOLA was not applicable for reopening the
assessments for AY 2015-16. The said concession was recorded in
paragraph 19(f) of the said decision. Paragraphs 19 (e) and 19(f) of
the said decision are relevant and are set out below: –

“(e) The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old
regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The
first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AWANISH W.P. (C) 6797/2023 Page 2 of 5
CHANDRA MISHRA
Signing Date:11.08.2025
17:21:52
the application of TOLA. Section 3 of the TOLA
applies to the entire Income Tax Act, including
Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the
first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with
TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April
2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to
the assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015,
2015- 2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018 will be
within the period of limitation as explained in the
tabulation below:

Assessment Within 3 Expiry Within six Expiry of
Year (1) Years(2) Limitation read Years(4) Limitation read
with TOLA for with TOLA for
(2)(3) (4)(5)
2013-2014 31.03.2017 TOLA not 31.03.2020 30.06.2021
applicable
2014-2015 31.03.2018 TOLA not 31.03.2021 30.06.2021
applicable
2015-2016 31.03.2019 TOLA not 31.03.2022 TOLA not
applicable applicable
2016-2017 31.03.2020 30.06.2021 31.03.2023 TOLA not
applicable
2017-2018 31.03.2021 30.06.2021 31.03.2024 TOLA not
applicable

(f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment
year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1
April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will
not fall for completion during the period
prescribed under the TOLA.”

9. Following the aforesaid concession, this court in Ibibo Group
Private Limited v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle

10-1, & Anr.: W.P.(C) 17639/2022 decided on 13.12.2024 allowed
the petition challenging a similar notice for AY 2015-16 which was
issued beyond the period of limitation as concededly TOLA was not
applicable. Similar orders has also been passed by other courts as
well.

10. In The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Jaipur v R.K. Build
Creations Pvt Ltd: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.
59625/2024 the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP arising from a

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AWANISH W.P. (C) 6797/2023 Page 3 of 5
CHANDRA MISHRA
Signing Date:11.08.2025
17:21:52
similar decision rendered by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in
DBCWP No.14414/2022. The said order is set out below: –

“Delay condoned.

Having regard to the concession made by the
petitioner-Department in the case of Union of
India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal
no.8629 of
2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE

754), this Special Leave Petition would not
survive for further consideration. Hence, the
Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

11. In the present case the impugned notice was issued on
27.07.2022, which was admittedly beyond the period of limitation
as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. Since TOLA was not
applicable in respect of the said notices under Section 148 of the
Act for AY 2015-16 as conceded by the Revenue in the case of
Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 INSC 754 (supra), the
impugned notice is liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the impugned notice and proceedings emanating
from the said notice are set aside.

13. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.”

4. According to him, in the present case, the impugned notice issued
under Section 148 dated 22.07.2022 is admittedly beyond the period of
limitation as prescribed under Section 149(1) of 1961 Act.

5. Since Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of Certain
Provisions) Act’ (TOLA)’ 2020 was not applicable in respect to the notices
under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16, as conceded by the revenue in
the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal (2024)469 ITR 46 (SC) the
impugned notice is liable to be set aside.

6. Suffice to state, the learned counsel for the revenue do not dispute the
applicability of the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AWANISH W.P. (C) 6797/2023 Page 4 of 5
CHANDRA MISHRA
Signing Date:11.08.2025
17:21:52
(2024)469 ITR 46 (SC) as followed by this Court in the case of Makemytrip
India Private Limited vs DCIT W.P.(C
) 2557/2023.

7. Accordingly, the impugned notice and proceeding emanating from the
notice dated 22.07.2022 are set aside.

8. The petition along with pending application(s), if any, is disposed of.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

VINOD KUMAR, J
JULY 30, 2025
tg

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AWANISH W.P. (C) 6797/2023 Page 5 of 5
CHANDRA MISHRA
Signing Date:11.08.2025
17:21:52

[ad_1]

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here