KAIROSOFT AI SOLUTIONS LIMITED FORMERLY PANKAJ PIYUSH TRADE AND INVESTMENT LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 31 DELHI & ANR.

Facts

The petitioner, Kairosoft AI Solutions Limited (formerly Pankaj Piyush Trade and Investment Limited), filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) and a notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner contended that these actions were barred by limitation, citing the Delhi High Court's judgment in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 31, Delhi, did not dispute the petitioner's position.

Held

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court accepted the petitioner's contention that the impugned order and notice were barred by limitation, acknowledging that the revenue's counsel was not in a position to dispute this position. Consequently, the order dated 30.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17 were quashed. The Court held that the principle laid down in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors was applicable. The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17 are barred by limitation, in light of the judgment in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors (2024 SCC OnLine Del 5292)? Assessee's contention: The order and notice are barred by limitation as per the Manju Somani judgment. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.