Delhi High Court – Orders
Springer Healthcare Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & … on 13 January, 2025
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~103
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 336/2025 and CM APPLs. 1665-66/2025
SPRINGER HEALTHCARE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Himanshu S. Sinha with Mr
Prashant Mecharchandani and Ms
Kanupria Sharma, Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr Puneet Rai with Mr Ashvini
Kumar and Mr Rishabh Nangia,
Advocates.
Mr Avtaar Singh Deol, Advocate for
R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
ORDER
% 13.01.2025
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated
28.10.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereafter the Act) in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined the
challenge to the said order on three grounds: first, that the initiation of
reopening of assessment for the AY 2017-18 is based on a change of
opinion, which is impermissible. He submits that the point in issue had been
examined in the assessment order passed in respect of the AY 2017-18 and
the recourse to provisions to Sections 147 and 148 of the Act is not available
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 20/01/2025 at 21:22:38
to review the said order. Second, he submits that in any event there was no
failure on the part of the petitioner to truly and correctly disclose all the
material facts in its return and in the proceedings instituted. Consequently,
the period of limitation for initiating reassessment proceedings would be
limited to four years in terms of the provisions as it existed prior to
01.04.2021. Thus, the impugned notice is beyond the prescribed period of
limitation. Third, he submits that even if it is assumed that the period of
limitation is six years from the end of the relevant AY, the said period has
also elapsed as the impugned notice has been passed after 31.03.2024. It is
submitted that the fifth and the sixth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act as
applicable at the material time does not override the first proviso to Section
149 of the Act.
3. Issue notice. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents accept
notice.
4. The grounds as urged by the petitioner are not insubstantial, therefore,
we consider it apposite to direct that if any reassessment order is passed by
the Assessing Officer, which is adverse to the petitioner, the same would not
be given effect to till the next date of hearing.
5. List on 02.04.2025.
VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
JANUARY 13, 2025/tr
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 20/01/2025 at 21:22:38
[ad_1]
Source link