DIVINE VISION INFRAESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/758/2025HC DelhiDLHC01001733202510 March 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the impugned notice dated 31.08.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16, was barred by limitation. The Court noted that the six-year period from the end of AY 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022. As the notice was issued after this date, it was beyond the permissible time limit. The Court relied on its own decision in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors and the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified the application of time limits for issuing notices under the new regime, particularly concerning the proviso to Section 149(1)(b). The revenue's counsel conceded to this position. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned notice and allowed the petition. No other issues were decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Divine Vision Infraestate Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The petition also challenged the notice under Section 148A(b) and the order passed under Section 148A(d) preceding the Section 148 notice. The petitioner argued that the issuance of the impugned notice was barred by limitation. The respondent, ITO, Ward 7(1), Delhi, did not contest this submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation, considering the provisions of the Act and the relevant case law. The assessee contended that the notice was barred by limitation. They relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors and the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal. Specifically, they highlighted that the six-year period from the end of AY 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022, and the impugned notice was issued thereafter. The revenue's counsel concurred with the assessee's submission regarding limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~48 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 758/2025 &CM APPL. 3767/2025

DIVINE VISION INFRAESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Rano Jain, Mr. Venketesh Chaurasia and Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, Advocates.

versus

ITO, WARD 7(1), DELHI

.....Respondent

Through: Counsel (appearance not given). CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

10.03.2025

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 31.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The petitioner also impugns the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act prior to the issuance of the impugned notice. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB. 4. Learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 and drew the attention of this Court to the following passages from the said 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 21:02:29

judgment: “46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the “time limits specified under the provisions of” 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. ***

***

*** 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses.”

5.

In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevant 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 21:02:29

(AY) 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022. The impugned notice has been issued thereafter, and the same is thus barred by limitation. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the aforesaid view. 7. In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside. 8. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MARCH 10, 2025 uk

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 21:02:29

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →