ADITI INFRABUILD AND SERVICES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 30 DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/473/2025HC DelhiDLHC01000925202515 January 2025Bench: 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 present writ petition and set aside the impugned notice dated August 30, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the finding that the notice was barred by limitation. The reasoning followed the established precedents of the High Court in cases like 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 stipulate that the ten-year period for reckoning limitation under Section 153C is to be calculated from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice was issued. The Revenue's counsel concurred with this interpretation. The operative direction was to set aside the notice. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aditi Infrabuild and Services Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated August 30, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This notice sought to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The petitioner's primary contention was that the impugned notice was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed by law. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, was the respondent. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and a stay application, both of which were considered by the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated August 30, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, is barred by limitation? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of limitation. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue concurred with the proposition that the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice under Section 153C was issued, and that this period is ten years. The Revenue did not present any arguments contrary to the petitioner's claim of limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 473/2025

ADITI INFRABUILD AND SERVICES LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sanat Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advocates

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 30 DELHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Jojit Pareek, JSCs

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

15.01.2025 CM APPL. 2213/2025 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 473/2025 & CM APPL. 2212/2025 (Stay) 3. Issue notice. The learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. 4. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the notice dated 30.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) seeking to reopen the assessment in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 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 18:47:33

5.

The petitioner’s case is that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of the limitation. 6. Concededly, the issue involved in the present case is covered by the earlier decision of this court in the case 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. 7. 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 153C of the Act has been issued. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue concurs with the aforesaid proposition. 9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned notice is set aside as being barred by limitation. 10. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JANUARY 15, 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 18:47:33

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →