GLITZ ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/14712/2024HC DelhiDLHC01072264202416 December 2024Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition. The Court acknowledged that the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was covered by its previous decision in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd V. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(3); Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:8330-DB. The Court also directed that the petitioner's rights to raise further issues before the Income Tax Authorities be left open. No specific finding on the merits of the Section 148 notice itself was recorded, as the petition was disposed of based on the precedent and the petitioner's request to preserve other rights.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Glitz Advertising Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated March 27, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) who lacked the authority to do so following a CBDT notification dated March 29, 2022. The High Court noted that a batch of similar matters was listed for hearing. The Court directed that reassessment proceedings could continue, but any final order passed would not be given effect to until the next hearing. The petitioner's counsel requested that their rights to raise further issues before the Income Tax Authorities be preserved.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid, considering the CBDT notification dated March 29, 2022? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the JAO had no jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice after the CBDT notification dated March 29, 2022, implying the notice was bad in law. Revenue's Contention: The respondent (Income Tax Officer) accepted notice and appeared before the Court. No specific arguments for the revenue were recorded in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~80 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14712/2024 & CM APPL. 61829/2024

GLITZ ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Milind Gautam, Advocate

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10(1), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

16.12.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia praying as under:- “a) Pass an order quashing the Notice bearing no. ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2023-24/1063492192(1) dated 27/03/2024, issued to the Petitioner under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment year 2020 -21.

b) Pass an order quashing the consequential proceedings as may be initiated by the Income Tax Department to give effect to the Impugned Notice;”

2.

The present petition was moved on 21.10.2024 when this Court had passed the following order:- “1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the notice dated 27.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) under 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 24/12/2024 at 12:04:04

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) on the ground that the same has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (hereafter the JAO), who has no jurisdiction to issue the same after the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) notification dated 29.03.2022.

2.

Issue notice.

3.

The learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.

4.

This Court is informed that a batch of matters involving the similar issue, as involved in the present petition, is now listed for hearing on 16.12.2024.

5.

Accordingly, list the present petition also on 16.12.2024.

6.

In the meanwhile, the counter-affidavit, if any, be filed within four weeks from date. Rejoinder, if any thereto, be filed before the next date of hearing.

7.

The reassessment proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice may continue, however, in case any final order against the petitioner is passed, the same shall not be given effect to, till the next date of hearing.”

3.

It is apparent from the order that the petitioner had confined the present petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to initiate proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1962. 4. Concededly, the said issue is covered by the decision of this Court in T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd V. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(3); Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:8330-DB. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests that its rights to raise further issues before the Income Tax Authorities be left open. It is so directed.

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 24/12/2024 at 12:04:04

6.

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 16, 2024 yrj 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 24/12/2024 at 12:04:04

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →