MERA BABA REALITY ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/10250/2024HC DelhiDLHC01043771202424 October 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned notice. The Court noted that the issues involved were covered by previous decisions of a Coordinate Bench in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner had presented a tabular statement, which was not disputed by the Revenue, demonstrating that the notice for AY 2013-14 was issued beyond the ten-year limitation period stipulated under Section 149 of the Act. The Revenue's counsel conceded to this position. Therefore, the Court found the notice to be barred by limitation and granted relief to the petitioner by quashing the notice. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mera Baba Reality Associates Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The petitioner contended that this notice was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. The petitioner provided a tabular statement demonstrating that AY 2013-14 was beyond the ten-year limitation period for initiating proceedings. The Revenue, represented by its counsel, conceded to the petitioner's contention regarding the limitation period.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-14, is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the impugned notice is beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. They relied on a tabular statement prepared in conformity with decisions of a Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., which indicated that AY 2013-14 falls outside the permissible ten-year window. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel fairly concurred with the assessee's contention that the impugned notice for AY 2013-14 is beyond the period stipulated under Section 149 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 149(1),Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~126 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10250/2024 & CM No.42034/2024 MERA BABA REALITY ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD......Petitioner Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Mr. Utkarsh Kumar Gupta, Advs. Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Mr. V.K. Saksena & Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 24.10.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 24.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of the assessment year 2013-14. 2. It is the petitioner’s case that the said notice is beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. 3. Concededly, the issues involved in the present petition are covered by the decisions of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Ors.: Neutral Citation No.:2024:DHC:4554-DB and The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.: 2024:DHC:2629-DB. 4. The petitioner has also annexed a tabular statement drawn up in conformity with the said decisions indicating that the reopening of assessment for the AY 2013-14 is barred by limitation, along with the petition as Annexure P-2. The said tabular statement is reproduced below: 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 06/11/2024 at 12:10:11

“Relevant Assessment year for initiating proceedings under Section 153A of the Act Computation of 06 years Computation of 10 years 2023-24 - 1 2022-23 1 2 2021-22 2 3 2020-21 3 4 2019-20 4 5 2018-19 5 6 2017-18 6 7 2016-17 8 2015-16 9 2014-15 10 Barred by time limitation 2013-14 11 (beyond terminal point of 10 years)” 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly concurs with the assessee’s contention that the impugned notice for AY 2013-14 is beyond the period as stipulated under Section 149 of the Act. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. 7. Pending applications is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J OCTOBER 24, 2024 ‘gsr’ 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 06/11/2024 at 12:10:11

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →