RAJESH PROJECTS (INDIA) PVT LTD vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19 (1) NEW DELHI AND ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/15976/2024HC DelhiDLHC01080822202410 December 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court found that the notice dated 31.08.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2015-16, was indeed barred by limitation. This finding was based on the concession made by the Revenue and the precedents set by the High Court in cases such as Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others and KAD Housing Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central 6 Delhi. The Court reasoned that since the Revenue itself admitted the notice was beyond the limitation period, there was no impediment to setting it aside. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside. Pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajesh Projects (India) Pvt Ltd, 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. The notice pertained to assessment year 2015-16. The petitioner's primary contention was that the notice was barred by limitation. The Revenue, represented by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), New Delhi, acknowledged that the impugned notice was indeed barred by limitation. The High Court had previously considered similar issues in other cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2015-16 is barred by limitation? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice issued under Section 148 is beyond the period of limitation and therefore liable to be set aside. The assessee relied on decisions of the Delhi High Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others and KAD Housing Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central 6 Delhi. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, after examining the challenge, conceded that the impugned notice is barred by limitation. The Revenue also acknowledged that the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by the aforementioned decisions of the Delhi High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15976/2024 and CM APPL. 67117/2024 RAJESH PROJECTS (INDIA) PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate. versus ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19 (1) NEW DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia with Mr Anant Mann and Mr Abhishek Anand, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 10.12.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of assessment year (AY) 2015-16. It is the petitioner’s case that the said notice is barred by limitation. 2. The present petition was listed on 05.12.2024 and the order passed on the said date is set out below: “1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The petitioner claims that the said notice is beyond the period of limitation and therefore is liable to be set aside. 2. Prima facie, the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by the decisions of this Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & 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 03/07/2025 at 20:32:10

Others Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:4554-DB, The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – Central-1 vs. Ojjas Medicare Pvt. Limited Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:2629-DB and KAD Housing Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central 6 Delhi Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:8214-DB.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue states that he has examined the petitioner’s challenge and the impugned notice is barred by limitation. He submits that the said issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by the decisions of this court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others, Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:4554-DB and KAD Housing Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central 6 Delhi, Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:8214-DB. 4. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is set aside. 5. Pending application shall also stand disposed of. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 10, 2024/tr 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 03/07/2025 at 20:32:10

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →