PREETI CHADHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 62(1), DELHI & ORS.

W.P.(C)-580/2024HC Delhi29 September 20263 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice dated 25.07.2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2016-17, was time-barred. The reasoning was that the satisfaction note was recorded on 16.06.2022, which falls within assessment year 2023-24. Calculating backwards from the preceding year (AY 2022-23 or FY 2021-22), and considering the escaped income was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the limitation period would extend to 6 years. Therefore, a notice issued on 25.07.2022 for AY 2016-17 was clearly beyond the permissible time limit. The Court relied on its own judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notice was quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Preeti Chadha, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 25.07.2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2016-17. This notice was issued in furtherance of a satisfaction note dated 16.06.2022. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the prescribed time period under Sections 153A and 153C of the Act. The revenue acknowledged that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the Delhi High Court but mentioned that an SLP was filed against it. The Court noted that the satisfaction note was recorded in assessment year 2023-24, making the notice issued on 25.07.2022 for AY 2016-17 time-barred.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 25.07.2022 under Section 153C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2016-17, is barred by limitation, considering the satisfaction note was recorded on 16.06.2022. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice was passed beyond the time period prescribed under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act of 1961, as prevailing at the relevant time. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. [2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi). Revenue's Contention: The revenue could not dispute the facts but submitted that an SLP against the cited judgment had been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
W.P.(C) 580/2024 Page 1 of 3 $~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 29th September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010009462024 + W.P.(C) 580/2024 & CM APPL. 2583/2024 PREETI CHADHA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Utkarsa Gupta, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 62(1), DELHI & ORS. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal SSC with Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, Mr. Akshat Singh, JSCs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY

J U D G M E N T DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL)

1.

By way of present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 25.07.2022 under Section 153C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1961’) in furtherance of the satisfaction note dated 16.06.2022 recorded by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2016-17. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outs

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →