PANCH TATVA PROMOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25 DELHI A ORSND

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17162/2024HC DelhiDLHC01091945202412 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 August 28, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the notice was barred by limitation. This decision was based on the established precedents of the same 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 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. The Revenue's counsel concurred with this proposition. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Panch Tatva Promoters Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated August 28, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This notice sought to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The petitioner's primary contention was that the impugned notice was issued beyond the period of limitation. The Revenue, represented by its counsel, accepted notice and concurred with the petitioner's submissions regarding the applicable legal principles.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated August 28, 2024, issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening assessment for AY 2015-16, 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 proposition that the period of limitation is to be reckoned in a specific manner, implying agreement with the assessee's underlying argument regarding the calculation of the limitation period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17162/2024 CM APPL. 72849/2024 CM APPL. 72850/2024

PANCH TATVA PROMOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED

.....Petitioner Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal, Mr. Dushyant Agarwal, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25 DELHI A ORSND

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Anuja Pethia, JSC, Ms. Anu Priya Nisha Minz, Mr. Srikant Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

12.12.2024 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 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 19/12/2024 at 13:05:40

of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd : Neutral Citation : 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 148 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 applications also stand disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 12, 2024 KG

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 19/12/2024 at 13:05:40

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →