CANADIAN SOLAR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4070/2025HC DelhiDLHC01017292202501 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 petition and set aside the impugned notice. 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 precedents, the Court held that the ten-year period for reckoning limitation under Section 148 of the Act is to be calculated from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice is issued. The Revenue's counsel concurred with this interpretation. Consequently, the notice was found to be barred by limitation and was quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Canadian Solar International Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated March 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This notice sought to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2014-15. The petitioner's primary contention was that the impugned notice was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed by law. The Revenue, represented by its counsel, accepted notice and concurred with the legal proposition advanced by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening assessment for AY 2014-15, dated March 31, 2024, is barred by limitation? (Question of law) The Assessee argued that the impugned notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. The Revenue concurred with the assessee's proposition regarding the limitation period.

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
$~97 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4070/2025 CM APPL. 18916-17/2025 CANADIAN SOLAR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Himanshu S Sinha, Mr Yash Varmani, Mr Utkarsh Mittal and Ms Ishita Sharma, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr Sunil Aggarwal, SSC, Mr Shivansh B Pandya, Mr Viplav Acharya, Ms Priya Sarkar, JSCs and Mr Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R % 01.04.2025

1.

Issue notice. The learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice.

2.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the notice dated 31.03.2024 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] 2014-15. 3. The petitioner’s case is that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of the limitation.

4.

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 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 22:59:57

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.

5.

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.

6.

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

7.

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

8.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending applications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 01, 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 22:59:57

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →