GALAXY DREEM HOME DEVLOPERS PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25 DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17161/2024HC DelhiDLHC01091874202413 December 2024Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court found that the notice was barred by limitation. The reasoning was based on the established precedents of the High Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others, The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd, and KAD Housing Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6, Delhi. These decisions stipulate that the period of ten years for reckoning limitation under Section 153C is to be calculated from the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the notice was issued. The Revenue's counsel conceded to this interpretation. The operative direction was to set aside the notice. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Galaxy Dreem Home Developers Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This notice sought to reopen the assessment for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The petitioner's primary contention was that the impugned notice was issued beyond the statutory period of limitation. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25, Delhi. The High Court issued notice, and the respondent's counsel accepted it. The court noted that the issue was covered by previous decisions of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice under Section 153C was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed by law. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue concurred with the proposition that the period of limitation needs to be reckoned in a specific manner, aligning with the petitioner's underlying argument regarding limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17161/2024 & CM APPL. 72847/2024

GALAXY DREEM HOME DEVLOPERS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr Somil Agarwal and Mr Dushyant, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25 DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr Shivendra Singh and Mr Yojit Pareek, JSCs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

13.12.2024 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 28.08.2024 issued under Section 153C (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) 2015-16. 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: 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 : 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 20/12/2024 at 12:56:35

2024:DHC: 2629-DB and KAD Housing Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6, Delhi : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:8214-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 153C of the Act has been issued. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue concurs with the aforesaid proposition. 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 application also stands disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 13, 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 20/12/2024 at 12:56:35

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →