NEERAJ BHARADWAJ vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(2) & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/3983/2025HC DelhiDLHC01016568202510 July 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the impugned notice dated June 24, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2014-15, was issued beyond the period of limitation. The Court noted that the maximum period of ten years for reopening assessments is to be computed from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the satisfaction note is recorded. The Court found that the question of limitation was covered by its earlier decision in The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned notice and all further proceedings initiated pursuant thereto. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 153C must adhere to the prescribed limitation periods, which are calculated based on the date of the satisfaction note.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Neeraj Bharadwaj, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated June 24, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The Revenue contended that the notice was issued pursuant to a satisfaction note recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) on July 6, 2023. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued beyond the limitation period. A tabular statement was presented to illustrate the ten-year block period for reopening assessments under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated June 24, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2014-15, is barred by limitation, considering the satisfaction note was recorded on July 6, 2023? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The impugned notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. The petitioner relied on the computation of the ten-year block period as provided under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue stated that the impugned notice was issued pursuant to the satisfaction note dated July 6, 2023, recorded by the AO. No specific argument was recorded regarding the limitation period itself.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3983/2025 CM APPL. 18511/2025 CM APPL. 18512/2025 CM APPL. 39554/2025 NEERAJ BHARADWAJ .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nilay Gupta, Mr. Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Mr. Sohum Dua and Ms. Mansha Anand, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(2) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra Khan, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSCs Ms Anauntta Shankar Ms Ravicha Sharma, and Ms Delphina Shinglai, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 10.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the notice dated 24.06.2024 [impugned notice] issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of the Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15. 2. It is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the impugned notice was issued pursuant to the satisfaction note dated 06.07.2023 recorded by the Assessing Officer [AO]. 3. In view of the above, it is apparent that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of the limitation. The maximum period of ten years for which the assessments could be reopened are required to be computed 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 15/07/2025 at 11:40:49

from the end of the assessment year relevant to the Financial Year [FY] , in which the satisfaction note is recorded. 4. The petitioner has set out a tabular statement reflecting the block period of ten years that could be possibly be covered by the impugned notice issued under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act. The said tabular statement is reproduced below: Computation of the ten years block period as provided under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Act No. of years AY 2024-25 1 AY 2023-24 2 AY 2022-23 3 AY 2021-22 4 AY 2020-21 5 AY 2019-20 6 AY 2018-19 7 AY 2017-18 8 AY 2016-17 9 AY 2015-16 10 5. Undisputedly, the question whether the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of limitation is covered by the earlier decision of this Court in The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd : Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2629-DB. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned notice and further proceedings continued thereto is set aside. 7. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending applications are disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J JULY 10, 2025/M 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 15/07/2025 at 11:40:49

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →