MOHD ATHAR ANJUM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/3084/2025HC DelhiDLHC01012844202509 May 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-17, dated 31.03.2024, is barred by limitation. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified that a notice under the new regime cannot be issued if the time limit under the old regime has expired. In this case, the six-year period from the end of AY 2016-17 expired on 31.03.2023. Since the impugned notice was issued after this date, it is time-barred. Consequently, the Court set aside both the impugned notice and the assessment order dated 15.03.2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act. The ratio decidendi is that notices for reopening assessments must comply with the applicable limitation periods, and if the old regime's time limits have expired, new notices cannot be issued under the new regime if they are time-barred under the old regime's framework.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohd Athar Anjum, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The petition also challenged the notice under Section 148A(b) and the order passed under Section 148A(d) preceding the Section 148 notice. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by the High Court's decision in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors. The petitioner further relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal. The period of six years from the end of AY 2016-17 expired on 31.03.2023, making the impugned notice issued thereafter barred by limitation. The respondent's counsel concurred with this view. An assessment order under Section 147 was passed on 15.03.2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2016-17, dated 31.03.2024, is barred by limitation, considering the provisions of the Act and relevant judicial precedents. Assessee's Contentions: - The issue is covered by the High Court's decision in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors. - The Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal held that a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the time limit for issuance under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime has expired. Specifically, for AY 2016-17, the six-year period from the end of the assessment year expired on 31.03.2023. The impugned notice issued thereafter is therefore barred by limitation. Revenue's Contentions: - The learned counsel for the respondent concurred with the assessee's submission that the notice is barred by limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 147,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3084/2025 CM APPL. 14616/2025 MOHD ATHAR ANJUM .....Petitioner Through: Mr Paritosh Jain, Mr Divyansh Jain and Mr Abhishek Jain, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr Shivendra Singh and Mr Yojit Pareek, JSCs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R % 09.05.2025

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 31.03.2024 [impugned notice] issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the Assessment Year [AY] 2016-17. 2. The petitioner also impugns the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act prior to the issuance of the impugned notice.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision of 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 01/07/2025 at 21:58:46

the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 and drew the attention of this Court to the following passages from the said judgment:

“46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the “time limits specified under the provisions of” 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. *** *** ***

49.

The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests 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 01/07/2025 at 21:58:46

assesses.”

5.

In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevant AY 2016-17 expired on 31.03.2023. The impugned notice has been issued thereafter, and the same is thus barred by limitation.

6.

The learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the aforesaid view.

7.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the assessment order under Section 147 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 15.03.2025. 8. In view of the above, the impugned notice as well as the assessment order dated 15.03.2025 are set aside.

9.

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 09, 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 01/07/2025 at 21:58:46

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →