GALAXY DREAM HOME DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 25, DELHI AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16662/2024HC DelhiDLHC01088075202403 December 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2014-15 was beyond the period of limitation. The Court clarified, based on its earlier decisions in Dinesh Jindal and Ojjus Medicare Private Limited, that the ten-year period for re-opening assessments is to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice is issued, and not from the end of the assessment year in which the notice is issued. In the present case, AY 2014-15 was found to fall beyond this ten-year period. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned notice was set aside. Pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Galaxy Dream Home Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to re-open the assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The petitioner contended that the impugned notice was beyond the period of limitation. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 25, Delhi, and others. The matter was heard by the Delhi High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2014-15 is beyond the period of limitation, considering the ten-year period is to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year in which the notice is issued? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice is beyond the period of limitation. They relied on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Private Limited, and Ravi Steel and Renewable Private Limited v. ACIT Central Circle 15, New Delhi and Others. They specifically referred to paragraph 10 of the latter case, which states the ten-year period is required to be computed from the end of the assessment year in which the notice under Section 148 is issued. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16662/2024 & CM APPL. 70456-57/2024

GALAXY DREAM HOME DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ...Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil

Agarwal and Mr. Dushyant Agarwal,

Advocates

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE 25, DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr.

Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit

Pareek, JSCs for R-1

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

O R D E R %

03.12.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 31.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) seeking to re-open assessment for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The petitioner contends that the impugned notice is beyond the period of limitation. Concededly, the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by the earlier decisions of this court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others : 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4230 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Private Limited : 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2439. The petitioner also relies on the decision of this court in Ravi Steel and Renewable Private Limited v. ACIT Central Circle 15, New Delhi and Others : W.P.(C) 14361/2024 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 13:01:44

decided on 14.10.2024, and submits that the assessment for a period of ten years is required to be reckoned from the date of the notice. However, he also refers to paragraph 10 of the said decision, which is set out below:

“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 computed from the end of the assessment 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.

The decisions in the case of Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others (supra) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Private Limited (supra), clarify that the period of ten years is to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year, relevant to the previous year in which the notice is issued and not from the end of the assessment year in which notice is issued. 4. In the present case, the relevant AY 2014-15 falls beyond the said period of 10 years. 5. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. 6. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J DECEMBER 03, 2024 ns 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 13:01:44

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →