BASIC CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ITO, WARD 4(1) NEW DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13684/2024HC DelhiDLHC01065643202421 October 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA3 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 the assessment year 2017-18, is barred by limitation. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified that 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. In this case, the six-year period for assessment year 2017-18 expired on 31.03.2024. As the impugned notice was issued after this date, it was consequently barred by limitation. The Court found the petitioner's submissions to be correct and that the respondent was unable to counter them. Therefore, the impugned notice was set aside. The petition was allowed in these terms, and pending applications were disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Basic Clothing 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 the assessment year 2017-18. The petition also challenged the preceding notices issued under Section 148A(b) and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The assessment year in question is 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the issuance of the Section 148 notice was barred by limitation. The respondent, ITO, Ward 4(1) New Delhi, was unable to counter the petitioner's submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18, is barred by limitation, concerning the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year as per the old regime, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is covered by the Delhi High Court's decision in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors. They further relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal, specifically passages indicating that 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. For AY 2017-18, the six-year period expired on 31.03.2024, and the impugned notice was issued thereafter, making it time-barred. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the respondent was unable to counter the submissions made by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 149(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~111 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13684/2024 & CM No.57316/2024 BASIC CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R. Sinha, Ms. Monalisa & Ms. Shilpa Chaudhary, Advs. Versus ITO, WARD 4(1) NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU O R D E R % 21.10.2024 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 2017-18. 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. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also refers 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 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 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 28/10/2024 at 12:15:30

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 for the relevant assessment year 2017-18 expired on 31.03.2024. The impugned notice has been issued thereafter, and the same is, thus, barred by limitation. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent is unable to counter the said submissions. 7. In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside. 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 28/10/2024 at 12:15:30

8.

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J OCTOBER 21, 2024 ‘gsr’ 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 28/10/2024 at 12:15:30

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →