PANCH TATVA PROMOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 25 DELHI AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16651/2024HC DelhiDLHC01088068202403 December 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2014-15 was barred by limitation. The Court relied on its earlier decisions in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. These decisions established that the ten-year period for reckoning limitation is to be calculated from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice under Section 148 was issued. Since the Revenue's counsel concurred with this position, the Court found the notice to be beyond the statutory time limit. Consequently, the impugned notice was set aside. The petition was allowed, and the notice was quashed as being barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Panch Tatva Promoters Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 25, Delhi, and others. The High Court issued notice, and the respondents' counsel accepted it. The court noted that the issue was covered by its previous decisions in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2014-15 is barred by limitation? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of limitation. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue concurs with the position that the issue is covered by the earlier decisions of the Court, implying agreement with the limitation period calculation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16651/2024 & CM APPL. 70435-36/2024 PANCH TATVA PROMOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr Somil Agarwal and Mr Dushyant Agarwal, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 25 DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr Siddhartha Sinha, SSC, Ms Anu Priya Nisha Minz, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 03.12.2024 1. Issue notice. The learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the notice issued under Section 148 (hereafter the impugned notice) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) seeking to reopen the assessment in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2014-15. 3. The petitioner’s case is that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of the limitation. 4. Concededly, the issue involved in the present case is covered by the earlier decision of this court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others: Neutral Citation: 2024: 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 09/12/2024 at 13:01:13

DHC:4554-DB as well as the decision in the case of The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:2629-DB. 5. In terms of the aforesaid decisions, the period of ten years is required to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year, which is relevant to the previous year in which the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue concurs with the aforesaid position. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned notice is set aside as being barred by limitation. 8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J DECEMBER 03, 2024 M 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 09/12/2024 at 13:01:13

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →