NIRALA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/14222/2024HC DelhiDLHC01068913202416 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 writ petition and set aside the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 as being barred by limitation. The Court relied on its earlier decisions 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. In these decisions, it was held that the period of ten years for reopening assessments under Section 148 must be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice under Section 148 was issued. The Court noted that the Revenue's counsel concurred with this proposition. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with the impugned notice being set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nirala Housing Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, Delhi. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned notice and the subsequent filing of this writ petition before 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 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 for the Revenue concurs with the proposition that the period of limitation needs to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice under Section 148 was issued.

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
$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14222/2024 CM APPL. 59578/2024 NIRALA HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, SSC, Mr Anant Mann, JSC Ms Aditi Sabharwal and Mr Abhishek Anand, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R % 16.04.2025

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: DHC:4554-DB, KAD Housing Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6, Delhi : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:8214- 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 22:45:47

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 stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 16, 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 22:45:47

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →