YUVRAJ JASGEET SINGH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (34) 1, DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/3874/2023HC DelhiDLHC01010853202318 February 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to evaluate the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This evaluation must consider the 'surviving period' in light of the judgments in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. The AO is also to consider the impact of judgments in T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal, and Naveen Kumar Gupta concerning the accordal of sanction under Section 151 and the authority of the jurisdictional AO to commence reassessment. The AO must pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing these points, determining whether the reassessment notices survive or should be recalled. The petitioner retains the right to challenge any adverse orders. The High Court followed its previous decision in Kanwaljeet Kaur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2025 SCC OnLine Del 605].

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Yuvraj Jasgeet Singh, filed a writ petition challenging the reassessment action initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (34) 1, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The core of the dispute revolves around the 'surviving period' of the reassessment notice. The petitioner argued that this issue needs to be examined in light of Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other revenue authorities. The procedural history involves the issuance of a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is now under challenge.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment action initiated by the respondent for AY 2013-14 is valid, considering the issue of the 'surviving period' of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the 'surviving period' of the reassessment notice is a critical issue that needs to be examined in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693] and the Delhi High Court's judgment in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO & Anr. [2025: DHC: 547-DB]. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue on this point, other than their role as respondents in the writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3874/2023 & CM APPL. 76109/2024 (FOR DIRECTIONS)

YUVRAJ JASGEET SINGH

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saurabh D. Karan Singh, Mr. Sanjay Shisodia & Mr. Akash Kumar, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE (34) 1, DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Monica Benjamin & Ms. Easha Kadian, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R %

18.02.2025

1.

The instant writ petition had been preferred assailing the reassessment action initiated by the respondent pertaining to Assessment Year [„AY‟] 2013-14. 2. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, submits that the solitary question which now survives for consideration is that of surviving period and which is liable to be examined in light of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693] and of this Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO & Anr. [2025: DHC: 547-DB]. 3. We note that while dealing with identical issues, we had 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 18:23:28

disposed of a batch of writ petitions by our judgment rendered in Kanwaljeet Kaur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2025 SCC OnLine Del 605] in the following terms: “27. We accordingly dispose of this batch of writ petitions by directing the concerned AOs to evaluate the individual SCNs' under Section 148 of the Act bearing in mind our judgments in T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta. These decisions have conclusively settled issues pertaining to the accordal of sanction under Section 151 as well as the authority of the jurisdictional AO to commence and undertake reassessment. Those decisions also lay at rest the challenge which the writ petitioners had raised that an AO is bound to adhere to the procedure prescribed by Section 153C in cases emanating from a search. 28. A similar exercise would have to be undertaken to examine the issue of surviving period in respect of each individual noticee under Section 148 and which would necessarily be guided by the judgments of Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram. 29. The concerned AOs shall consequently pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the impact of the judgments referred to above upon the impugned reassessment notices and in the manner indicated in paras 27 and 28 of this order. That decision shall thus render a finding on whether the impugned reassessment notices would survive or be liable to be recalled. It shall be open to the writ petitioners to assail any adverse orders that may come to be passed pursuant to the above in accordance with law.” 4. Consequently, and in light of the above, we dispose of the writ petition on terms identical to those provided in paragraphs 27 to 29 of Kanwaljeet Kaur.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. FEBRUARY 18, 2025/v

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 18:23:28

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →