SEEMA GOEL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTAL CIRCLE -19

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6314/2025HC DelhiDLHC01029193202513 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 impugned notice dated 28.02.2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-18, is barred by limitation. The Court reasoned that the six-year period from the end of AY 2017-18 expired on 31.03.2024. As the notice was issued after this date, it contravened the time limits prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, as interpreted in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal. The Court noted that the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime limits the retrospective operation of the ten-year period to protect assessees. The respondent's counsel concurred with this view. Consequently, the impugned notice was set aside, and the petition was allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Seema Goel, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated 28.02.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 28.02.2025 passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 07.12.2024 issued under Section 148A(b). The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by previous High Court decisions. The assessment year in question is 2017-18, and the notice was issued after the expiry of the six-year limitation period from the end of the relevant assessment year.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.02.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-18 is barred by limitation, considering the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime and the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime. Assessee's Contentions: - The notice under Section 148 is barred by limitation as the period of six years from the end of AY 2017-18 expired on 31.03.2024, and the notice was issued thereafter. - The issue is covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB. - Relied on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, particularly passages concerning the time limits for issuing notices under the new regime and the prospective application of the ten-year limit. Revenue's Contentions: - The learned counsel for the respondent concurred with the petitioner's view regarding the limitation period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 148A(b),Section 149(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~70 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6314/2025 & CM APPL. 28742/2025, CM APPL. 28743/2025 SEEMA GOEL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain, Mr. Shubham Gupta, Ms. Shalini, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R %

13.05.

2025

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 28.02.2025 [impugned notice] issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the Assessment Year [AY] 2017-18. 2. The petitioner also impugns the order dated 28.02.2025 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice dated 07.12.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.

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 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 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 22:32:46

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 assesses.”

5.

In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevant 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 22:32:46

AY 2017-18 expired on 31.03.2024. The impugned notice was issued thereafter, and is, therefore, barred by limitation.

6.

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

7.

In view of the above, the impugned notice dated 28.02.2025, is set aside.

8.

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 13, 2025/KG

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 22:32:46

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →