HAWELIA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10 (1 ) DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/15845/2024HC DelhiDLHC01079367202417 April 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the present petition and set aside the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024. The Court held that the notice was barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on earlier decisions of the same court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others; KAD Housing Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6, Delhi; and Pankaj Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi & Anr. These decisions established that the ten-year period for reckoning limitation for a Section 148 notice is to be calculated from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice was issued. The Revenue's concurrence with this proposition led to the decision. The operative direction was to set aside the notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hawelia Builders Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The petitioner contended that the impugned notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. The Revenue's counsel concurred with the petitioner's submission regarding the applicable legal proposition on limitation. The matter was decided by the Delhi High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation? Assessee's Contention: The impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of limitation. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue concurs with the aforesaid proposition regarding the period of limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~105 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15845/2024 & CM APPL. 66539/2024 HAWELIA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani & Mr. Utkarsh Kumar Gupta, Advocates. versus ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10 (1) DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Sr.SC, Mr. Shivendra Singh, Jr.SC & Mr. Yojit Pareek, Jr.SC for Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R %

17.04.

2025

1.

The Petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 [the impugned notice] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] seeking to reopen the assessment in respect of the Assessment Year [AY] 2015-16. 2. The Petitioner’s case is that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of the limitation.

3.

Concededly, the issue involved in the present case is covered by the earlier decision of this court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others: Neutral Citation: 2024: 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 23:48:30

DHC: 4554-DB, KAD Housing Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6, Delhi: Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC: 8214-DB and Pankaj Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi & Anr. : Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 157-DB.

4.

In terms of the aforesaid decisions, the period of ten years is required to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year, which is relevant to the previous year in which the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue concurs with the aforesaid proposition.

6.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned notice is set aside as being barred by limitation.

7.

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

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 17, 2025/ ‘A’

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 23:48:30

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →