VIJAY KUMAR BANSAL vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCEL 14, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/85/2023HC DelhiDLHC01068482202310 March 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition on terms identical to those provided in paragraphs 27 to 29 of its judgment in Kanwaljeet Kaur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2025 SCC OnLine Del 605]. This means the concerned Assessing Officer (AO) is directed to evaluate the individual show-cause notices (SCNs) under Section 148 of the Act. The AO must consider the judgments in T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal, and Naveen Kumar Gupta, which have settled issues regarding sanction under Section 151 and the authority of the AO to commence reassessment, as well as the applicability of Section 153C in search cases. Furthermore, the AO must examine the issue of the surviving period for each notice under Section 148, guided by the judgments in Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram. The AO is to pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing the impact of these judgments on the impugned reassessment notices, determining whether they survive or should be recalled. Petitioners are permitted to challenge any adverse orders in accordance with law. The specific finding on whether the reassessment is time-barred is left to the AO's evaluation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vijay Kumar Bansal, filed a writ petition challenging the reassessment action initiated by the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 14, New Delhi, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the reassessment proceedings are time-barred. The petitioner provided a chart detailing the timeline of notices issued under Section 148 and Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the dates of replies and orders. The initial assessment order under Section 143(3) was framed on January 21, 2016. The notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on May 26, 2022, followed by a reply on June 8, 2022. The order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 were issued on July 26, 2022, and July 28, 2022, respectively, which the petitioner claims are time-barred.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner for Assessment Year 2013-14 are time-barred, considering the timelines of notices issued under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the relevant case law. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the reassessment proceedings are time-barred. They rely on the timeline provided, indicating that the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 were issued beyond the permissible period, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and this Court's decision in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. They also cite Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue on the issue of the surviving period or time-barring of the proceedings. The revenue is represented by Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 148A,Section 151,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 85/2023 VIJAY KUMAR BANSAL .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Kapil Goel and Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advs. versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCEL 14, NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC along with Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, JSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R %

10.03.

2025

1.

The instant writ petition had been preferred assailing the reassessment action initiated by the respondent pertaining to Assessment Year [‘AY’] 2013-14. We take note of the principal challenge which now remains and pertains to the issue of surviving period.

2.

The petitioner, in order to buttress its claim of the proceedings being time barred, has placed for our consideration the following chart: WP (C) NO 85/2023 2013-2014 ( an assessment order dated 21.01.2016 was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act REFER Annexure ) 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 21:03:09

OLD LAW /INITIAL NOTICE U/S 148 30.06.2021 (ANNEXURE P-4 PAGE 124 to 127) Time remaining till 30.06.2021 0 day 148A(B)NOTICE 26.05.2022 (ANNEXURE P-6 PAGE 145 TO 147) REPLY 148A(C) 08.06.2022 (ANNEXURE P-7 PAGE 148 TO 170) Extended period by which notice u/s 148 could be issued 08.06.2022 (08.06.2022 plus zero day) 148A(D) ORDER & 148 NOTICE UNDER NEW REGIME 26.07.2022 & 28.07.2022(ANNEXURE P-8 & P-9 PAGE 171 to 181 & 182/183) TIME BARRED OUTSIDE 08.06.2022 STATUS TIME BARRED AS PER ILLUSTRATION GIVEN IN RAJEEV BANSAL (PARA 112) & THIS HON’BLE COURT W.P.(C) 16232/2024 Judgment delivered on: 30.01.2025) & Covered by this hon’ble court decision in case of Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors 2025:DHC:656-DB (para 27 to para 29)

3.

The said question would have to be necessarily examined by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer bearing in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693] as well as of this Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. [2025 SCC OnLine Del 481].

4.

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 21:03:09

Commissioner of Income Tax [2025 SCC OnLine Del 605] in the following terms:

“27. We accordingly dispose of this batch of writ petitions by directing the concerned AOs to evaluate the individual SCNs' under Section 148 of the Act bearing in mind our judgments in T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta. These decisions have conclusively settled issues pertaining to the accordal of sanction under Section 151 as well as the authority of the jurisdictional AO to commence and undertake reassessment. Those decisions also lay at rest the challenge which the writ petitioners had raised that an AO is bound to adhere to the procedure prescribed by Section 153C in cases emanating from a search.

28.

A similar exercise would have to be undertaken to examine the issue of surviving period in respect of each individual noticee under Section 148 and which would necessarily be guided by the judgments of Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram.

29.

The concerned AOs shall consequently pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the impact of the judgments referred to above upon the impugned reassessment notices and in the manner indicated in paras 27 and 28 of this order. That decision shall thus render a finding on whether the impugned reassessment notices would survive or be liable to be recalled. It shall be open to the writ petitioners to assail any adverse orders that may come to be passed pursuant to the above in accordance with law.”

5.

Consequently, and in light of the above, we dispose of the writ petition on terms identical to those provided in paragraphs 27 to 29 of Kanwaljeet Kaur.

YASHWANT VARMA, J

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J MARCH 10, 2025/RW 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 21:03:09

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →