AALIYAH REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1-1 & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16260/2022HC DelhiDLHC01044273202203 September 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice dated July 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings. The Court's decision was based on its prior judgment in Twylight Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2024:DHC:259-DB]. The reasoning, as extracted from the Twylight Infrastructure judgment, indicates that the quashing was primarily on the ground that there was no approval from the specified authority as required under Section 151(ii) of the Act. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to take steps for fresh reassessment proceedings, if deemed necessary, in accordance with the law. The rights and contentions of both parties were expressly kept open in the event the revenue initiated new reassessment proceedings. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Aaliyah Real Estates Private Limited, challenged a notice dated July 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The High Court of Delhi was hearing the writ petition. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the revenue. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner filed a writ petition to quash the notice and proceedings. The revenue conceded that the issues raised were concluded by a previous judgment of the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated July 29, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed on the grounds raised by the petitioner. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. While the specific grounds are not detailed in this order, the judgment refers to a prior ruling in Twylight Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2024:DHC:259-DB], which implies the assessee's challenge was based on similar grounds as in that case, likely relating to procedural infirmities in the reassessment process. Revenue's Contention: The revenue conceded that the issues and challenge raised by the petitioner stood concluded in light of the judgment in Twylight Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. CIT. They further sought liberty to commence reassessment proceedings afresh if the impugned orders and notices were set aside, as per the observations in the Twylight Infrastructure judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16260/2022, CM APPL. 42091/2024, CM APPL. 42204/2024, CM APPL. 42207/2024

AALIYAH REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Utkarsh Kumar, Mr. Tarun, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1-1 & ANR.

.....Respondent

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Ms. Easha, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

O R D E R %

03.09.2024 1. On hearing learned counsels for parties, we find that the issues and the challenge raised stands concluded in light of the judgment rendered by the Court in Twylight Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2024:DHC:259-DB]. This position is conceded to by the respondents. 2. Accordingly, and for the reasons assigned in the aforenoted judgment, we allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned notice dated 29 July 2022 passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings initiated thereto, subject to liberty reserved as per paragraph Nos. 28 to 30 of Twylight Infrastructure, and which read as under: “28. Before us, the counsel for the revenue continue to hold this position. The only liberty that they seek is that if, based on the judgment in Ganesh Dass Khanna, the impugned orders and 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 06/09/2024 at 15:36:00

notices are set aside, liberty be given to the revenue to commence reassessment proceedings afresh. 29. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid, the impugned notices and orders in each of the above-captioned writ petitions are quashed on the ground that there is no approval of the specified authority, as indicated in Section 151(ii) of the Act. The direction is issued with the caveat that the revenue will have liberty to take steps, if deemed necessary, albeit as per law. 30. Needless to add, the rights and contentions of both the sides will remain open, in the event the revenue triggers reassessment proceedings.” 3. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. SEPTEMBER 3, 2024/neha 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 06/09/2024 at 15:36:00

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →