PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWALLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25 DELHI AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17148/2024HC DelhiDLHC01091943202417 December 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court found that the issue regarding the limitation period for issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was squarely covered by its earlier decisions 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 established that the ten-year period for limitation is to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice was issued. Since the revenue concurred with the petitioner's submission that the notice was beyond this period, the Court quashed the impugned notice as being barred by limitation. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Agrawalla, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2024, for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, did not dispute this contention. The High Court noted that this issue was covered by previous decisions of the court, which held that the ten-year period for reckoning limitation for Section 148 notices is to be calculated from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice was issued.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2024, for AY 2013-14 is barred by limitation? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The notice is beyond the period of limitation. Revenue's contention: The revenue concurred with the petitioner's submission regarding the limitation period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17148/2024 CM APPL. 72824-25/2024 PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWALLA .....Petitioner Through: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr Somil Aggarwal, Mr Dushyant Aggarwal, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25 DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr Shlok Chandra, SSC, Ms Naincy Jain and Ms Madhavi Shukla, JSCs and Mr Sushant Pandey, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 17.12.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:- “i. Admit and allow the Writ Petition on merits as this Hon’ble Court has full jurisdiction to hear and decide the same; ii. Issue a writ/ order / direction of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/direction/order quashing the impugned notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2024 for AY 2013-14. iii. Grant ad-interim ex-parte relief in terms of aforementioned prayers staying the effect and operation of the impugned notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2024 for AY 2013-14 as well as all proceedings initiated pursuant to impugned notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2024 for AY 2013-14, till the disposal of the present writ petition;” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that impugned notice dated 31.03.2024 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 23/12/2024 at 12:15:34

under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for the assessment year (AY) 2013-14 is beyond the period of limitation. 3. Concededly, this issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by the earlier decision of the Coordinate Bench 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 decisions in the cases 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. 4. 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. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue concurs with the aforesaid proposition. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned notice is set aside as being barred by limitation. 7. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 17, 2024 M 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 23/12/2024 at 12:15:34

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →