M/S ALLIED GLASSES PVT. LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1) & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16627/2022HC DelhiDLHC01045462202211 March 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court noted that the principal ground of challenge, that the reassessment action was barred by time, did not survive in light of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India and others v. Rajeev Bansal. The Supreme Court had held that Section 3 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, would apply, and the time frame for reassessment action would have to be in consonance with it. Since the period for initiation of reassessment fell within the broad period of 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021, the Court found no merit in the challenge on this score. Regarding other contentions, the Court observed that they pertained to the merits of the reopening and the material used by the Assessing Officer, which could be examined in the course of the reassessment proceedings. All rights and contentions of the respective parties on merits were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Allied Glasses Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the reassessment action initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The reassessment notice was dated 25 June 2021. The primary ground of challenge raised in the writ petition was that the reassessment action was barred by time. The respondents were represented by learned counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment action initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-14, dated 25 June 2021, is barred by time? Assessee's contention: The primary contention of the petitioner was that the reassessment action was time-barred. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the reassessment action was valid, relying on the provisions of Section 3 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others v. Rajeev Bansal. The revenue argued that the time frame for reassessment should be in consonance with this Act. The revenue also stated that other contentions pertained to the merits of the reopening, which could be examined during reassessment.

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) 16627/2022

M/S ALLIED GLASSES PVT. LTD .....Petitioner

Through: None.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1) & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh and Ms. Zehra Khan, JSCs and Ms. Ruchir Joshi, Advocate for ITD. Mr. Kavindra Gill, Sr.P.C. for UOI/R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R %

09.01.2025 1. Although Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the respondent is present, none has appeared for the writ petitioner when the matter was called. 2. We take note of the challenge which stands raised in the writ petition and which is to the reassessment action as initiated by the respondents under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25 June 2021 and pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14. 3. The principal ground of challenge which was addressed in the writ petition was of the reassessment action being barred by time. That issue clearly does not survive any longer in light of the authoritative 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 01/07/2025 at 21:41:03

pronouncement rendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Rajeev Bansal (and other appeals) [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693]. 4. The Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal has clearly held that the provisions of Section 3 of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 would apply and the time frame for initiation and completion of reassessment action would have to be in consonance thereof. 5. In view of the aforesaid and since the period for initiation of reassessment would fall within the broad period of 20 March 2020 and 30 June 2021, we find no merit in the challenge which stands raised on this score. 6. Insofar as the other contentions are concerned, those clearly pertain to the merits of the reopening and the material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer came to form the opinion that income exigible to tax had escaped assessment. Those are issues which can always be examined in the course of reassessment. 7. Accordingly, and for all the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the instant writ petition. All rights and contentions of respective parties on merits are kept open.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JANUARY 09, 2025/akc 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 01/07/2025 at 21:41:03

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →