ANGELS INFRAHEIGHT PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 DELHI & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16679/2024HC DelhiDLHC01088240202403 December 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the impugned notice dated 29.08.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16, was barred by limitation. The court reasoned that the notice was issued during the financial year 2024-25, which is relevant to AY 2025-26. Consequently, the period of limitation was required to be computed from the end of AY 2025-26. Since AY 2015-16 falls beyond the ten-year period from the end of AY 2025-26, the notice was deemed invalid. The court set aside the impugned notice on the grounds of limitation. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Angels Infraheight Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated August 29, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to reopen its assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. The notice was issued during the financial year 2024-25, relevant to AY 2025-26. The Delhi High Court noted that the issue was covered by its prior decisions in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. The court observed that AY 2015-16 was beyond the ten-year period from the end of AY 2025-26.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.08.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment of AY 2015-16, is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16679/2024 & CM APPL. 70589-90/2024 ANGELS INFRAHEIGHT PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Ved Jain, Mr Nishay Kantoor, Ms Sonia Dodeja Mr Divyansh, and Mr Govind Gupta, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Indruj Singh Rai, SSC, Mr Sanjeev Menon and Mr Rahul Singh, JSCs and Mr Anmol Jagga, Advocate for the Revenue. Ms Anju Tyagi Adv/SPC for R4 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 dated 29.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) seeking to reopen the petitioner’s assessment in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of the limitation as prescribed under Section 149 of the 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 13:01:57

Act. 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: 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 the present case, the impugned notice has been issued during the financial year 2024-25, which is relevant to the AY 2025-26. Therefore, the period of the limitation is required to be computed from the end of AY 2025-26. And, AY 2015-16 is beyond the period of ten years from the end of the AY 2025-26. 6. The impugned notice is, accordingly, set aside as being barred by limitation. 7. 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 13:01:57

$~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16641/2024 & CM APPL. 70397-98/2024 JAY SHIVA EARTHMOVERS AND CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Kapil Goel and Mr Sandeep Goel, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(3) DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr Shivendra Singh and Mr Yojit Pareek, JSCs. 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 respondent accepts notice. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 (hereafter the impugned notice) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) seeking to reopen the petitioner’s assessment in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of the limitation as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. 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 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 13:01:57

Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others: Neutral Citation: 2024: 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. 8. In the present case, the impugned notice has been issued during the financial year 2024-25, which is relevant to the AY 2025-26. Therefore, the period of the limitation is required to be computed from the end of AY 2025-26. And, AY 2015-16 is beyond the period of ten years from the end of the AY 2025-26. 5. The impugned notice is, accordingly, set aside as being barred by limitation. 6. 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 13:01:57

More judgments on Section 148

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →