SAJJAN SINGH VERMA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/395/2025HC DelhiDLHC01000592202514 January 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the notice dated February 29, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15, is beyond the period of limitation. The Court relied on its previous decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., which was premised on the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-15 vs. Jasjit Singh. The Court found no reason to reconsider Ojjus Medicare or distinguish Jasjit Singh. Following these precedents, the period of limitation for a Section 153C notice is to be computed from the date of the satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, which was February 19, 2024. The maximum period of 10 years under Section 153C is to be computed from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the satisfaction note is recorded. Based on the petitioner's tabular statement, AY 2014-15 falls outside this period. Consequently, the impugned notice was set aside on the ground of limitation alone. Other grounds raised by the petitioner were not examined.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sajjan Singh Verma, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated February 29, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This notice sought to reopen assessments for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. The notice was based on a search conducted under Section 132 of the Act on April 7, 2019, in the cases of Sh. Praveen Kakkar and Sh. Lalit Kumar Chhallani/Miglani Group. The Assessing Officer of the searched persons recorded a satisfaction note on February 19, 2024, stating that material found during the search contained information pertaining to the petitioner. The petitioner provided a tabular statement showing that AY 2014-15 was time-barred.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated February 29, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15 is beyond the period of limitation? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice is beyond the period of limitation. They relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and a Supreme Court decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-15 vs. Jasjit Singh. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue submitted that the decision in Ojjus Medicare (supra) may require reconsideration as it was incorrectly decided and that the decision in Jasjit Singh (supra) is distinguishable. The Revenue did not present any other arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~80 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 395/2025

SAJJAN SINGH VERMA

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ruchesh Sinha and Mr. Aniket D Agrawal, Advocates

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI & ANR

.....Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

14.01.2025 CM APPL. 2059/2025 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 395/2025 & CM APPL. 2058/2025 (Interim Relief) 3. Issue notice. 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 29.02.2024 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) seeking to reopen assessments for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 5. It is the petitioner’s case that the said notice is beyond the period of limitation. Concededly, this case is covered by the decision of this court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Neutral Citation 2024:DHC:2629-DB. The learned counsel 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 21:27:44

appearing for the Revenue submits that the Ojjus Medicare (supra) may require reconsideration as it was incorrectly decided. 6. It is noted that the decision in Ojjus Medicare (supra) is also premised on a decision of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-15 vs. Jasjit Singh: 2023:458 ITR 437 (SC). We are unable to accede to the submissions made on behalf of the Revenue that the decision in Ojjus Medicare (supra) requires to be revisited or that the decision in Jasjit Singh (supra) is distinguishable. 7. In the present case, the impugned notice is premised on a search that was conducted under Section 132 of the Act in case of Sh. Praveen Kakkar, Sh. Lalit Kumar Chhallani/Miglani Group of cases on 07.04.2019. The Assessing Officer (AO) of the searched person had recorded a satisfaction note dated 19.02.2024 to the effect that the books of accounts, documents or material found during the said search under Section 132 of the Act contained information pertaining to the petitioner. 8. In terms of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. RRJ Securities Ltd, Neutral Citation 2015:DHC:8989-DB and Ojjus Medicare (supra) the period of limitation is required to be computed from the date of the satisfaction note as recorded by the AO of the searched person which in this case was recorded on 19.02.2024. The maximum period of 10 years, which would be covered under Section 153C of the Act, in this case, is required to be computed from end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the satisfaction note is recorded. 9. The petitioner has set out a tabular statement indicating the aforesaid term, which could possibly be covered under a notice issued under Section 153C of the Act in this case. The said tabular statement is reproduced 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 21:27:44

below:- S. No. A.Y. Narration 1. 2024-25 1st Year 2. 2023-24 2nd Year 3. 2022-23 3rd Year 4. 2021-22 4th Year 5. 2020-21 5th Year 6. 2019-20 6th Year 7. 2018-19 7th Year 8. 2017-18 8th Year 9. 2016-17 9th Year 10. 2015-16 10th Year 11. 2014-15 Time barred

10.

It is apparent from the above that the impugned notice is beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, the same is set aside on this ground alone. 11. We note that the petitioner has also raised certain other grounds. However, in view of our conclusion that the notice is issued beyond the period of limitation, we do not consider it apposite to examine the other issues, as raised. 12. The petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application also stands disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JANUARY 14, 2025 Aj

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 21:27:44

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →