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

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4028/2025HC DelhiDLHC01017250202501 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. The Court held that the notice was barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the established position of law as laid down in previous decisions of the same court, specifically 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, it was held that the period of ten years for issuing a notice under Section 148 is to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice was issued. The Revenue's counsel concurred with this legal proposition. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed as being beyond the statutory time limit. The petition was disposed of in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Canadian Solar International Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated August 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This notice sought to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The petitioner's primary contention was that the impugned notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi, accepted notice. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Section 148 notice and the subsequent filing of the writ petition to challenge its validity on grounds of limitation.

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? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of limitation. The assessee relies on the decisions of this 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. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue concurs with the proposition that the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice under Section 148 was issued, as per the cited precedents.

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
$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4028/2025 & CM APPL. 18712-13/2025 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 31.08.2024 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. 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 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 20:59:37

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 20:59:37

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →