AGILE CONSTRUCTION LLP vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/1097/2025HC DelhiDLHC01003439202529 January 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 writ petition and set aside the impugned notice dated February 6, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the notice was barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the established decisions of the same court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others, The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd, and KAD Housing Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6, Delhi. These decisions stipulate that the ten-year period for reopening assessments 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. The Revenue's counsel concurred with this interpretation. The operative direction was to set aside the notice. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Agile Construction LLP, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated February 6, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The petitioner contended that the impugned notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner provided a tabular statement illustrating that AY 2014-15 falls in the 11th year from the relevant financial year, exceeding the permissible ten-year period for reopening assessments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for AY 2014-15 is barred by limitation. Assessee's contention: The notice is beyond the ten-year limitation period, as AY 2014-15 is the eleventh year from the relevant financial year. The petitioner relies on the principle that the ten-year period is to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice is issued. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue concurred with the proposition that the ten-year period 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.

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
$~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1097/2025 & CM APPL. 5415/2025 AGILE CONSTRUCTION LLP .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Manu, JSC CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

29.01.

2025

1.

Issue notice. The learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.

2.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the notice dated 06.02.2024 issued under Section 148 (hereafter the impugned notice) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) seeking to reopen the assessment in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2014-15. 3. The petitioner’s case is that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of the limitation.

4.

The petitioner has set out a tabular statement indicating the aforesaid, which is reproduced below:- A.Y. 2024-25 1st Year A.Y. 2023-24 2nd Year A.Y. 2022-23 3rd Year A.Y. 2021-22 4th Year 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 19:21:15

A.Y. 2020-21 5th Year A.Y. 2019-20 6th Year A.Y. 2018-19 7th Year A.Y. 2017-18 8th Year A.Y. 2016-17 9th Year A.Y. 2015-16 10th Year A.Y. 2014-15 11th Year (beyond terminal point of 10 years)

5.

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 as well as the decision in the case of The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC: 2629-DB and KAD Housing Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6, Delhi : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:8214-DB.

6.

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.

7.

The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue concurs with the aforesaid proposition.

8.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned notice is set aside as being barred by limitation.

9.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending 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 19:21:15

applications also stand disposed of.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JANUARY 29, 2025/j 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 19:21:15

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →