AVINASH KUMAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/1039/2025HC DelhiDLHC01002974202504 February 2025Author: HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition. The Court held that the impugned notice dated 02.04.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16, was barred by limitation. The Court reasoned that the period of six years from the end of AY 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022. Since the impugned notice was issued thereafter, it was beyond the permissible time limit as per the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal. The revenue concurred with this finding. Consequently, the impugned notice was set aside, and the petition was allowed in these terms. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Avinash Kumar, challenged a notice dated 02.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The challenge also extended to the notice under Section 148A(b) and the order passed under Section 148A(d) that preceded the Section 148 notice. The petitioner argued that the issuance of the notice was barred by limitation. The respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 28, Delhi, concurred with the petitioner's submission regarding the limitation period.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16, dated 02.04.2024, is barred by limitation, considering the provisions of the Act and relevant judicial pronouncements. The assessee contended that the notice is barred by limitation. The assessee relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors and the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal. The assessee specifically highlighted passages from the Supreme Court judgment indicating that a notice under the new regime cannot be issued if the time limit under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime has expired, and that the six-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year must be considered. The revenue concurred with the assessee's submission regarding the limitation period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1039/2025, CM APPL. 5137/2025 & CM APPL. 5138/2025 AVINASH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ujjwal Jain, M.A. Ansari and Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Ms. Hemlata Rawat and Mr. V.K. Saksena, JSCs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

04.02.

2025

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 02.04.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The petitioner also impugns the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act prior to the issuance of the impugned notice.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB. 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 02/07/2025 at 00:17:00

4.

Learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 and drew the attention of this Court to the following passages from the said judgment:

“46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the “time limits specified under the provisions of” 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. ***

***

***

49.

The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. 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 02/07/2025 at 00:17:00

proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses.”

5.

In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevant (AY) 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022. The impugned notice has been issued thereafter, and the same is thus barred by limitation.

6.

The learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the aforesaid view.

7.

In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside.

8.

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J FEBRUARY 4, 2025 Aj

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 02/07/2025 at 00:17:00

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →