RAVI STEEL AND RENEWABLES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 DELHI ORS

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/14361/2024HC DelhiDLHC01069479202414 October 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the application for rectification. The Court found that a typographical error had indeed occurred in paragraph 10 of the order dated 14.10.2024, which was subsequently rectified by the order dated 03.12.2024. The error was the mention of AY 2015-16 instead of the correct AY 2014-15. The Court ordered that paragraph 10 of the original order be rectified to accurately reflect AY 2014-15. The reasoning was based on the concession that the issue was covered by earlier decisions of the Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-I v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd., which stipulate that the ten-year period is reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice under Section 148 was issued. The Court found no dispute that AY 2014-15 fell beyond this ten-year period from the date of the impugned notice. The application for rectification was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ravi Steel and Renewables Private Limited, filed an application seeking rectification of a previous order dated 14.10.2024, which had been further rectified by an order dated 03.12.2024. The grievance was a typographical error in paragraph 10 of the order, where the Assessment Year (AY) was incorrectly stated as AY 2015-16 instead of AY 2014-15. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 15, Delhi. The application was filed before the Delhi High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessment Year mentioned in paragraph 10 of the order dated 14.10.2024, as rectified on 03.12.2024, is AY 2015-16 or AY 2014-15, considering a typographical error. Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that there was a typographical error in paragraph 10 of the order, and the Assessment Year should be AY 2014-15, not AY 2015-16. They sought rectification of this error. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding this rectification application. However, the presence of the Revenue's counsel suggests their participation or acknowledgment of the proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14361/2024

RAVI STEEL AND RENEWABLES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Somil Agarwal and Mr. Shaurabh, Advocates

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 DELHI ORS

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC with Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSC and Ms. Zehra Khan, JSC

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

20.01.2025 CM APPL. 3398/2025 1. This is an application seeking rectification of order dated 14.10.2024 as rectified by the order dated 03.12.2024. 2. The learned counsel points out that a typographical error has crept in paragraph no. 10 of the order inasmuch as it mentions the Assessment Year as AY 2015-16 instead of AY 2014-15. 3. Accordingly, paragraph 10 of the order dated 14.10.2024 is rectified to read as under:- “10. Concededly, said issue is covered by the earlier decisions of this Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of 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 18:17:03

Income Tax & Ors.: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4230 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-I v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd.: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2439. In terms of the said 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 is issued. In the present case, there is no cavil that the AY 2014-15 falls beyond the period of ten years from the date of the issuance of the impugned notice."

4.

The application stands disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JANUARY 20, 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 01/07/2025 at 18:17:03

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →