SH. PUNEET DEWAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -19 NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/941/2025HC DelhiDLHC01002587202524 January 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the notice dated 14.06.2024 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is beyond the period of limitation and accordingly set it aside. The Court relied on its own decision in Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. and Ojjus Medicare (supra), which in turn was premised on the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-15 vs. Jasjit Singh. The Court found no reason to accede to the Revenue's submissions that Ojjus Medicare required reconsideration or that Jasjit Singh was distinguishable. The Court reasoned that the period of limitation for Section 153C notices is to be computed from the date of the satisfaction notes recorded by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, which were dated 11.04.2023 and 12.06.2023. 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 tabular statement provided by the petitioner, the notice was found to be beyond this period. The Court did not examine other grounds raised by the petitioner, as the notice was set aside on the ground of limitation alone. The petition was allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sh. Puneet Dewan, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated 14.06.2024 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 beyond the period of limitation. The notice was issued pursuant to a search conducted under Section 132 of the Act on 07.04.2019 in the cases of Sh. Praveen Kakkar and Sh. Lalit Kumar Chhallani/Miglani Group. The Assessing Officer of the searched persons recorded satisfaction notes on 11.04.2023 and 12.06.2023, indicating that material found during the search contained information pertaining to the petitioner. The Revenue argued that the decision relied upon by the petitioner might require reconsideration.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 14.06.2024 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen assessments for AY 2014-15, is beyond the period of limitation? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 153C is barred by limitation. They relied on the High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and the Supreme Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-15 vs. Jasjit Singh. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue submitted that the decision in Ojjus Medicare (supra) may require reconsideration as it was allegedly incorrectly decided. They also argued that the decision in Jasjit Singh (supra) is distinguishable. The Revenue did not present alternative arguments on the merits of the limitation period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 941/2025

SH. PUNEET DEWAN

.....Petitioner Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Mr. Udit Sharma, Mr. Aniket Khanduri and Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Advocates

versus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -19 NEW DELHI

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC with Ms. Sakshi Shairwal, JSC

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

24.01.2025 CM APPL. 4627/2025 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 941/2025 & CM APPL. 4626/2025 (Stay) 3. Issue notice. 4. Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC for Revenue accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 5. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 14.06.2024 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 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 23:26:35

(hereafter the Act) seeking to reopen assessments for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 6. 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 appearing for the Revenue submits that the Ojjus Medicare (supra) may require reconsideration as it was incorrectly decided. 7. 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. 8. 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 notes dated 11.04.2023 and 12.06.2023 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. 9. 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 notes as recorded by the AO of the searched person which in this case was recorded on 11.04.2023 and 12.06.2023. The 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 23:26:35

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. 10. 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 below:- Computation of the ten-year block period as provided under Section 153C read with Section 153C 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

11.

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. 12. 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.

13.

The petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The 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 23:26:35

pending application also stands disposed of.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JANUARY 24, 2025 Aj

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 23:26:35

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →