BASANT PROJECTS LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(2) DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17521/2024HC DelhiDLHC01095290202419 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 High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned notice. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4554-DB). In terms of that decision, the ten-year period for reckoning limitation for a notice under Section 148 of the Act is to be calculated from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the notice has been issued. The Court found that the petitioner's tabular statement, which the Revenue's counsel concurred with, clearly indicated that the notice for AY 2015-16 was issued beyond the ten-year period. Therefore, the notice was held to be barred by limitation and consequently quashed. Pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Basant Projects Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated August 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The petitioner contended that the notice was barred by limitation. The Revenue's counsel accepted notice. The petitioner provided a tabular statement illustrating that the ten-year period for issuing such a notice, reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year of issuance, would render the notice for AY 2015-16 time-barred. The Revenue's counsel concurred with this tabular statement.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated August 31, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16 is barred by limitation? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The impugned notice is barred by limitation. The ten-year period for issuing a Section 148 notice should be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the notice is issued. Based on this, the notice for AY 2015-16 is time-barred. Revenue's contention: The Revenue's counsel concurred with the assessee's tabular statement demonstrating that the notice is time-barred, implying agreement with the assessee's legal interpretation and factual calculation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17521/2024 & CM APPL. 74544-45/2024 BASANT PROJECTS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Ruchesh Sinha and Ms Monalisa Maity, Advocates. versus DCIT CIRCLE 4(2) DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra Khan, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSCs Mr. Kanishk Aggarwal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 19.12.2024 1. Issue notice. The learned counsel for the Revenue accepts notice. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 31.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The petitioner contends that the impugned notice is barred by the limitation. 3. Concededly, the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by an 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. In terms of the said decision, the period of ten years is required to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been 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 20:33:22

issued. The petitioner has set out a tabular statement indicating the ten years that would be covered within the period of limitation. The said tabular statement is set out below:- Sr. No. A Y Years Narration 1 2025-26 1 1st year 2 2024-25 2 2nd year 3 2023-24 3 3rd year 4 2022-23 4 4th year 5 2021-22 5 5th year 6 2020-21 6 6th year 7 2019-20 7 7th year 8 2018-19 8 8th year 9 2017-18 9 9th year 10 2016-17 10 10th year 11 2015-16 11 Time Barred 12 2014-15 12 Time Barred 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue concurs with the said tabular statement. 5. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. Pending applications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 19, 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 01/07/2025 at 20:33:22

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →