CONSISTENT BUILDERS PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 05, DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6181/2023HC DelhiDLHC01017797202329 September 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the impugned order dated 30.03.2023, passed for assessment year 2011-12, was clearly beyond the limitation period prescribed under Sections 153A and 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that the satisfaction note was recorded on 25.06.2021 (in assessment year 2022-23), and the order was passed on 30.03.2023. Calculating backward from AY 2022-23, the ten-year limitation period for escaped income exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- would extend up to AY 2013-14. Therefore, the order for AY 2011-12 was time-barred. The Court found the issue squarely covered by its earlier decision in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The writ petition was allowed, and the order dated 30.03.2023 was quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Consistent Builders Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 30.03.2023 passed under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2011-12. This order was in furtherance of a satisfaction note dated 25.06.2021 recorded by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed beyond the time period prescribed under Sections 153A and 153C of the Act. The revenue acknowledged that the issue was covered by a Delhi High Court judgment but stated that an SLP had been filed against it. The Court noted that the satisfaction note was recorded in assessment year 2022-23, and the order for AY 2011-12 was passed beyond the ten-year limitation period for escaped income exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 30.03.2023 passed under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2011-12 is barred by limitation, considering the satisfaction note was recorded on 25.06.2021. Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed beyond the time period prescribed under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act of 1961 as prevailing at the relevant time. They relied on the judgment of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. ([2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi)). Revenue's contention: The revenue could not dispute the facts but submitted that an SLP against the Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. judgment had been filed before the Supreme Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 6181/2023 Page 1 of 3

$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 29th September, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010177972023 + W.P.(C) 6181/2023, CM APPL. 24306/2023

CONSISTENT BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. P. Roychaudhuri and Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advs.

versus

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 05, DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC, Mr. Anant Mann, JSC and Mr. Pratyaksh Gupta, JSC for Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY

J U D G M E N T DINESH MEHTA, J. 1. By way of present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 30.03.2023 passed under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1961’) in furtherance of the satisfaction note dated 25.06.2021 recorded by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2011-12. (ORAL)

2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner at the outset argued that the impugned order has been passed beyond the time period prescribed under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act of 1961 as prevailing at the Signed By:PRATI MA Signing Date:01.10. 2026 19:35 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 6181/2023 Page 2 of 3

relevant time (AY 2011-12). 3. He submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (Central-1) v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2024] 465 ITR 101 (Delhi). 4. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department could not dispute the aforesaid position of facts involved. He, however, submitted that an SLP against the said judgment has been filed before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It does not need much discussion that as the satisfaction note was recorded on 25.06.2021, i.e. in the assessment year 2022-23, the order passed on 30.03.2023 qua assessment year 2011-12 is clearly beyond the limitation period (which shall be 10 years as the escaped income is more than Rs.50,00,000/-), if calculated backward from assessment year 2022-23. For ease of understanding, a tabular depiction is made hereunder: Year No. (counted backwards) Assessment Year 1 AY 2022-23 2 AY 2021-22 3 AY 2020-21 4 AY 2019-20 5 AY 2018-19 6 AY 2017-18 7 AY 2016-17 8 AY 2015-16 9 AY 2014-15 10th year AY 2013-14

7.

The impugned order is, thus, time-barred on a plain reading of Sections Signed By:PRATI MA Signing Date:01.10. 2026 19:35 Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 6181/2023 Page 3 of 3

153A and 153C of the Act of 1961 so also in light of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 8. The writ petition is allowed, the order dated 30.03.2023 is quashed. Pending application stands disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA) JUDGE

ADITI CHOUDHARY (JUDGE) September 29, 2026/bh Signed By:PRATI MA Signing Date:01.10. 2026 19:35 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →