Delhi High Court – Orders
Rakesh Mahajan vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 16 January, 2025
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela, Vibhu Bakhru
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 562/2025
RAKESH MAHAJAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Sumit Lalchandani, Mr Utkarsh
Gupta and Ms Ananya Kapoor,
Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4, DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr Sunil Aggarwal, SSC, Mr
Shivansh B Pandya, Mr Viplav
Acharya, JSCs and Mr Utkarsh
Tiwari, Advocate.
Mr Abhishek Yadav, SPC for UOI/R2
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 16.01.2025
CM APPL. 2662/2025(Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 562/2025 & CM APPL. 2661/2025(Stay)
3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a
notice dated 13.06.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under
Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act). In addition, the
petitioner also challenges the constitutional validity of the Explanation 2 to
the Section 148 of the Act.
4. The petitioner challenges the impugned notice on two grounds.
Firstly, in terms of the proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, the notice under
Section 153A of the Act could not have been issued. This assertion is
premised on the basis that the time period for making the assessment under
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 23/01/2025 at 21:27:29
Section 153A of the Act, as stipulated under Section 153B of the Act, has
expired.
5. The second ground on which the impugned notice is challenged is that
the assessment year (AY) 2014-15 is beyond the period of ten years, which
could be covered under Section 153A of the Act.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a tabular
statement indicating that the AY 2014-15 is beyond the period of ten years.
The said tabular statement is set out below: –
Date of Issuance of notice under
Section 148 of the Act – 13.06.2024
(AnnexureP-1)
AY 2025-26 1
AY 2024-25 2
AY 2023-24 3
AY 2022-23 4
AY 2021-22 5
AY 2020-21 6
AY 2019-20 7
AY 2018-19 8
AY 2017-18 9
AY 2016-17 10
AY 2015-16 Beyond 10 years
AY 2014-15 Beyond 10 years
7. In so far as the petitioner’s contention that the AY 2014-15 is beyond
the period of ten years that could be covered by a notice under Section 153A
of the Act is concerned, the same is unmerited. The issue is covered by an
earlier decision of this court in The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax –
Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC: 2629-
DB.
8. The period of ten years is required to be reckoned from the end of the
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 23/01/2025 at 21:27:29
assessment year relevant to the financial year in which year the search was
conducted. In the present case, the search was conducted on 20.07.2022,
that is, during the financial year 2022-23. Thus, the relevant assessment
year, would be AY 2023-24. If the period of ten years is reckoned from the
end of the AY 2023-24, the AY 2014-15 would be covered within the said
period. Accordingly, the said contention is rejected.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the challenge to
the constitutional vires of Explanation 2 to Section 148 of the Act.
10. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to issue notice confined
only to the petitioner’s challenge premised on the proviso to Section 149(1)
of the Act, as noted above.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice.
12. The counter affidavit, if any, be filed within the period of two weeks
from date. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be also filed before the next date of
hearing.
13. List on 24.03.2025.
14. In the meanwhile, the reassessment proceedings pursuant to the
impugned notice may continue, however, in case any order adverse to the
petitioner is passed, the same shall not be given effect to till the next date of
hearing.
VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
JANUARY 16, 2025
M
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 23/01/2025 at 21:27:29
[ad_1]
Source link