RAVI STEEL AND RENEWABLES PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 DELHI ORS

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/14380/2024HC DelhiDLHC01069498202414 October 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the period of ten years for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice is issued. This finding is based on the Court's earlier decisions in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine Del 4230) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (2024 SCC OnLine Del 2439). The Court noted that in the present case, Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 falls beyond the period of ten years from the date of the issuance of the impugned notice. The Court rectified a typographical error in paragraph 10 of its order dated 14.10.2024 to reflect this position accurately. No further orders were required to be passed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ravi Steel and Renewables Pvt Ltd, approached the Delhi High Court via a writ petition (W.P.(C) 14380/2024) against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The petition was initially disposed of by an order dated 14.10.2024. On 03.12.2024, the matter was taken up on oral mentioning by the learned counsel for both parties. The petitioner's counsel pointed out a typographical error in paragraph 10 of the earlier order, which the respondents' counsel concurred with. The Court perused the order and confirmed the existence of a typographical error in paragraph 10.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the period of ten years for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice is issued. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the assessee regarding this issue, other than implicitly agreeing to the rectification of the typographical error in the order which referenced relevant case law. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue regarding this issue, other than implicitly agreeing to the rectification of the typographical error in the order which referenced relevant case law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~On mentioning * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14380/2024 RAVI STEEL AND RENEWABLES PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr Somil Agarwal, Mr Dushyant Agarwal, Ms Sonali Maurya, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 NEW DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms.Zehra Khan, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSCs Ms.Anauntta Shankar, Ms.Yashika Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 03.12.2024 1. The present petition is taken up on oral mentioning of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The same was disposed of by an order dated 14.10.2024. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that a typographical error has crept in paragraph 10 of the order dated 14.10.2024. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents concurs to the same. We have also perused the order dated 14.10.2024. There is indeed a typographical error in paragraph 10 of the order dated 14.10.2024. The same is accordingly rectified to read as under: 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 09/12/2024 at 13:01:12

“10. Concededly, said issue is covered by the earlier decisions of this Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4230 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-1 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 2015-16 falls beyond the period of ten years from the date of the issuance of the impugned notice.” 3. No further orders are required to be passed. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J DECEMBER 03, 2024 ‘gsr’ Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 09/12/2024 at 13:01:12

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →