LOMBARD PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 13(1) & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/8349/2023HC DelhiDLHC01023665202323 July 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the impugned notice dated 02.06.2022 issued under Section 148A(b), the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), the impugned assessment order dated 19.05.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, and the impugned notice dated 19.05.2023 issued under Section 156 are bad in law as they are beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by The Finance Act, 2021. The Court relied on its own decision in Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT Circle 16(1) New Delhi & Anr., which in turn followed the concession made by the Revenue in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. The Revenue conceded that for AY 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1st April 2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 26.07.2022 (referred to in para 13, though the date in para 1 and 2 is 02.06.2022) and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto. The petition was allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Lombard Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging several notices and an assessment order related to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The challenged actions included a notice dated 02.06.2022 under Section 148A(b), an order dated 30.07.2022 under Section 148A(d), an assessment order dated 19.05.2023 under Section 147 read with Section 144B, and a notice dated 19.05.2023 under Section 156. The petitioner contended that these actions were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021, which came into effect on 01.04.2021. The respondents, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, did not contest the applicability of certain High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 02.06.2022 issued under Section 148A(b), the order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d), the assessment order dated 19.05.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, and the notice dated 19.05.2023 issued under Section 156, in the case of the petitioner for AY 2015-16, are bad in law as they are beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by The Finance Act, 2021. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that all impugned notices and the order were passed after 01.04.2021 and were therefore beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act, as amended. They relied on decisions of the Delhi High Court, Bombay High Court, Rajasthan High Court, and a Supreme Court dismissal of a Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue. They specifically cited the case of Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT Circle 16(1) New Delhi & Anr. and the Supreme Court's concession in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondents did not contest the applicability of the judgment in Union of India and Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal, as followed by the Court in Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 156,Section 149,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~72 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8349/2023, CM APPL. 31950/2023 LOMBARD PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Shivam Yadav, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 13(1) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Sr. SC with Ms. Naincy Jain and Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Ms. Naincy Jain, Jr. SCs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R %

23.07.

2025

1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- “A. Issue a writ of and/or order and or directions in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing impugned notice dated 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act and the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act dated 02.06.2022 by the Respondent No. 1 and the impugned assessment order dated 19.05.2023 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and notice dated 19.05.2023 issued under section 156 of the Act by Respondent No. 2 pursuant thereto in the case of the Petitioner for AY 2015-16 ; B. Issue a writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Prohibition commanding Respondents to forebear from giving effect to and/or taking any step whatsoever pursuant to and/or in furtherance of the said impugned assessment order dated 19.05.2023 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and notice dated 19.05.2023 issued under section 156 of the Act by Respondent No. 2 pursuant thereto in the case of the Petitioner for AY 2015-16; C. Issue any other Writ, order or Direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 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.

D. To dispense with from filing certified copies of Annexures.”

2.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned Notice dated 02.06.2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’], the impugned Order dated 30.07.2022 Delhi & Anr. [2025 (5) TMI 1967] wherein this Court has in paragraph 11 onwards stated as under:- “11. It is relevant to refer to paragraph 19(e) and 19(f) from the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (supra), which sets out the concession as made on behalf of the Revenue: “e. The Finance Act 2021 substituted the old regime for re-assessment with a new regime. The first proviso to Section 149 does not expressly bar the application of TOLA. Section 3 of TOLA applies to the entire Income-tax Act, including Sections 149 and 151 of the new regime. Once the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) is read with TOLA, then all the notices issued between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2021 pertaining to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 will be within the period of limitation as explained in 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.

tabulation below:

f. The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-16, all notices issued on or after 1 April 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under TOLA;”

12.

In view of the above concession, the impugned notice and the proceedings relating thereto are required to be set aside. We may also note the decision of the Supreme Court in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.: Civil Appeal No.5177/2025, decided on 02.04.2025. The said appeal arose from orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa and Cuttack declining to entertain batch of petitions filed by the Assessees. The attention of the Supreme Court was drawn to the concession made on behalf of the Revenue in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal (supra) and noting the same, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below:

“4. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue with his usual fairness invited the attention of this Court to a three judge bench decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f) which reads thus:- “19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.”

5.

As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for 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.

completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos.2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at cuttack stands allowed.

13.

The notice dated 26.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act stands quashed and set aside. Concededly, the controversy is covered in favour of the petitioner by the decision of this court in Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16 (1) Delhi & Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:1892-DB.

14.

The petition is, accordingly, allowed and all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are set aside.

15.

The next date of hearing, that is, 16.09.2025, stands cancelled.”

3.

Ms. Naincy Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, do not contest the applicability of the judgement in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024 INSC 754] as followed by the Court in Mectech knitfabs Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

4.

If that be so, the impugned Notice dated 02.06.2022, impugned Order dated 30.07.2022, impugned Assessment Order dated 19.05.2023 and impugned Notice dated 19.05.2023 are set aside.

5.

Accordingly, the present petition along with the pending application is disposed of as allowed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

SAURABH BANERJEE, J JULY 23, 2025/bh 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.

More judgments on Section 148A(b)

All 524 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →