AMBIT SHELTERS LLP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD - 60 (5) , NEW DELHI AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/1390/2023HC DelhiDLHC01003179202315 May 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and set aside all proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned notice. The Court found that the controversy was covered in favour of the assessee by its own decision in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr. The reasoning followed the assessee's arguments regarding the computation of the limitation period. The initial notice under Section 148, deemed to be under Section 148A(b), was issued on the last day of the extended limitation period (30.06.2021). The Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal directed that the period from the notice issuance until 04.05.2022, and the time provided for the assessee's response, should be excluded from the limitation period for issuing a notice under Section 148. This exclusion meant that the AO had only seven days, as per the sixth proviso to Section 149(1), to issue the notice under Section 148 after the assessee's reply. This period expired on 04.06.2022. As the impugned notice was issued on 30.06.2022, it was beyond the permissible time limit. The operative direction was to set aside the notice and all consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ambit Shelters LLP, challenged a notice dated 30.06.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15. An initial notice under Section 148 was issued on 30.06.2021 and served on 16.07.2021. This notice was deemed to be issued under Section 148A(b) by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal. The Assessing Officer provided material on 13.05.2022, and the assessee responded on 27.05.2022. The AO passed an order under Section 148A(d) on 30.06.2022. The assessee contended that the impugned notice was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.06.2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2014-15, is barred by limitation. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the period of six years from the end of AY 2014-15 expired on 31.03.2021. While the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 extended the time limit to 30.06.2021, the initial notice under Section 148 was issued on this last day. Following the Supreme Court's directions in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal, the period from the notice issuance till 04.05.2022, and the time granted for response, should be excluded. This leaves no time for the AO to issue a fresh notice under Section 148 after the assessee's reply, making the impugned notice dated 30.06.2022 beyond the seven-day period stipulated by the sixth proviso to Section 149(1). Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~107 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1390/2023 AMBIT SHELTERS LLP .....Petitioner Through: Mr Rohit Jain and Mr Saksham Singhal, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD - 60 (5) , NEW DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Apoorv Agarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R % 15.05.2025

1.

The petitioner [Assessee] has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 30.06.2022 [the impugned notice] issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15. It is the Assessee’s case that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

2.

The initial notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2014-15 was issued on 30.06.2021. The petitioner claims that the said notice was served upon him via email on 16.07.2021. The said notice was unsustainable as it was issued in accordance with the statutory regime regarding reassessment in force prior to 31.03.2021. This court in the case of Mon Mohan Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2021:DHC:4181-DB had set aside such notices that were issued after 31.03.2021 without following the procedure as prescribed under Section 148A of the Act. However, the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India 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 20:05:28

& Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal: (2023) 1 SCC 617, issued directions for considering the said notices as the notices issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act and further granted time to the Assessing Officer to supply the material on which such notices were premised.

3.

In compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra), the Assessing Officer [AO] provided information and material to the Assessee on 13.05.2022. The Assessee was granted two weeks’ time to respond to the said notice. The Assessee responded to the notice dated 13.05.2022 on 27.05.2022. 4. The AO passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act on 30.06.2022. According to the Assessee, the same was beyond the period as stipulated.

5.

In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the assessment year for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act expired on 31.03.2021. Thus, in terms of Section 149 of the Act, a notice under Section 148 of the Act could not be issued. However, the said period was extended by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [TOLA]. Consequently, the time limit for issuing such a notice was extended to 30.06.2021. 6. The original notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 30.06.2021, which was the last day before the expiry of the period of limitation.

7.

As noted above, the said notice was deemed to be a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act by virtue of the decision of the Supreme Court in 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 20:05:28

Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra). The Supreme Court also granted further time to provide the material, which was required to accompany such a notice. As explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, the period from the date of the issuance of the notice till 04.05.2022, the date on which the Supreme Court had rendered the decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra) is required to be excluded in terms of the fifth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act. Additionally, the time provided till the date of providing the material, which should have accompanied a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act, as well as the time available to the assessee to respond to the said notice was also required to be excluded by virtue of the third Proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, as applicable at the material time.

8.

Since the initial notice under Section 148 of the Act –subsequently construed as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act – was issued on the last date of the limitation; there was no time available for the AO to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act after the petitioner had furnished its reply to the said notice. Thus in terms of sixth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, the AO had seven days to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, which expired on 04.06.2022. The impugned notice was issued on 30.06.2022, which is after the period for issuing such a notice had expired.

9.

Concededly, the said controversy is covered in favour of the Assessee by the decision of this court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:547-DB.

10.

The present petition is, accordingly, allowed and all proceedings 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 20:05:28

initiated pursuant thereto are set aside. The pending application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 15, 2025 RK 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 20:05:28

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →