EMAAR INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS EMAAR MGF LAND LTD) )PAN AABCE4308B) vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 DELHI & ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court held that the controversy in the present petition was covered by its prior decision in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-28 Delhi & Ors. The Court rejected the contention that the time-period stipulated under Section 149 of the Act was not applicable in the given facts. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned notice dated December 28, 2023. The reasoning relied on the principle that the liberty granted to the Revenue to initiate reassessment is subject to the fulfillment of conditions prescribed under Sections 147 and 148, and cannot override the restrictions in Section 149. The ratio decidendi is that reassessment proceedings must strictly comply with the statutory limitations, including time limits, as laid down in the Act, even when relying on Supreme Court pronouncements regarding the Revenue's power to reassess.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Emaar India Limited, challenged a notice dated December 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2009-10. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by a previous decision of the Delhi High Court in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-28 Delhi & Ors. The revenue's counsel concurred with this view. The Delhi High Court had previously considered the conditions for reassessment under Sections 147 and 148, particularly in light of Supreme Court observations in Abhisar Buildwell, emphasizing that reassessment powers are subject to statutory prescriptions and limitations, including those in Section 149 of the Act.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the impugned notice dated December 28, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2009-10, is valid, considering the limitations prescribed under Section 149 of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue was squarely covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-28 Delhi & Ors., implying that the notice was likely invalid based on that precedent. Revenue's Contention: The respondent revenue concurred with the petitioner's submission that the matter was covered by the ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2025
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning notice dated 28.12.2023 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of assessment year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-28 Delhi & 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 23:41:52
Ors.: Neutral Citation No.:2024:DHC:7423-DB.
This Court in the case of ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. (supra) held as under:
“38. It is pertinent to note that a reference to Sections 147 and 148 of the Act in Abhisar Buildwell firstly appears in paragraph 33 of the report and where the Supreme Court observed that in cases where a search does not result in any incriminating material being found, the only remedy that would be available to the Revenue would be to resort to reassessment.
However, the Supreme Court caveated that observation by observing that the initiation of reassessment would be “.....subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in Sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannot be left with no remedy”. This sentiment came to be reiterated with the Supreme Court observing that the power of the Revenue to initiate reassessment must be saved failing which it would be left with no remedy. It was thereafter observed in paragraph 36.4 of the report that insofar as completed or unabated assessments were concerned, they could be reopened by the AO by invocation of Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions “......as envisaged/mentioned under Sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved”.
It thus becomes apparent that the liberty which the Supreme Court accorded and the limited right inhering in the Revenue to initiate reassessment was subject to that power being otherwise compliant with the Chapter pertaining to reassessment as contained in the Act. The observations of the Supreme Court cannot possibly be read or construed as a carte blanche enabling the respondents to overcome and override the restrictions that otherwise appear in Section 149 of the Act. The observations of the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell were thus intended to merely convey that the annulment of the search assessments would not deprive or denude the Revenue of its power to reassess and which independently existed. However, the Supreme Court being mindful of the statutory prescriptions, which otherwise imbue the commencement of reassessment, qualified that observation by providing that such an action would have to be in accordance with law. This note of caution appears at more than one place in that judgment and is apparent from the Supreme Court observing that the power to reassess would be subject to the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in Sections 147 and 148 of the Act.”
Plainly, the controversy involved in this petition is covered by 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 23:41:52
decision of this court in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. (supra). The contention that the time-period as stipulated under Section 149 of the Act is not applicable, in the given facts, is erroneous and thus rejected.
The learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the aforesaid view.
The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. Pending application is also disposed of.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J FEBRUARY 24, 2025/rl
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 23:41:52
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026