A R INFRASTRUCTURES AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2304/2023HC DelhiDLHC01005878202327 February 2025Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) to evaluate the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This evaluation must consider the issue of the 'surviving period' in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and the High Court's judgment in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. The AO is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing the impact of these judgments on the impugned reassessment notice, determining whether it would survive or be liable to be recalled. The petitioner retains the liberty to challenge any adverse order passed by the AO. The Court also referenced its prior judgment in Kanwaljeet Kaur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, which dealt with similar issues concerning sanction under Section 151 and the authority of the AO to commence reassessment, as well as the applicability of Section 153C in search cases.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, A R Infrastructures and Projects Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the reassessment action initiated by the Income Tax Officer for Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary contention of the petitioner revolved around the 'surviving period' of the reassessment proceedings, arguing they were time-barred. The petitioner presented a chart to support its claim regarding the timeline. The High Court noted that this issue required examination by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in light of specific Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment action initiated by the respondent for Assessment Year 2013-14 is barred by limitation, specifically concerning the 'surviving period' (mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of limitation provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the reassessment proceedings were time-barred, presenting a chart to demonstrate this. The petitioner relied on the principle that reassessment actions must be initiated within the prescribed time limits. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the revenue on the issue of limitation. However, the revenue was represented, implying a defense against the petitioner's claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2304/2023 & CM APPL. 8756/2023 (Stay) A R INFRASTRUCTURES AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni and Mr. Himanshu Aggarwal, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % 27.02.2025

O R D E R

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: 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 22:46:02

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.

Dealing with identical issues, we had disposed of a batch of writ petitions by our judgment rendered in Kanwaljeet Kaur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2025 SCC OnLine Del 605] in the 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 22:46:02

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. FEBRUARY 27, 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 22:46:02

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →