BRILLIANT METALS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17227/2024HC DelhiDLHC01092818202413 December 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the view taken by the Court on the issue of limitation was correct in law, as the Revenue could not cite any contrary law. The period of six years from the end of AY 2017-18 expired on 31.03.2024. The impugned notice, issued thereafter, was therefore barred by limitation. The reasoning followed the Delhi High Court's earlier order dated 13.12.2024 and the Supreme Court's observations in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal, which clarified that the new time limits under Section 149(1)(b) apply prospectively and the proviso limits retrospective operation to protect assessees. Consequently, the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 dated 31.08.2024 for AY 2017-18 were quashed. The writ petition was allowed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Brilliant Metals Private Limited, challenged a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. They also challenged the notice dated 10.08.2024 under Section 148A(b) and the order dated 31.08.2024 under Section 148A(d). A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court initially allowed the writ petition on 13.12.2024, finding the notice barred by limitation as the six-year period from the end of AY 2017-18 expired on 31.03.2024. The Revenue filed an SLP, which was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 16.07.2026, remanding the matter to consider if the proceedings were time-barred.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-18, is barred by limitation, considering the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime and the first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notice was barred by limitation. They relied on the Delhi High Court's previous decision in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors and the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal, specifically passages indicating that a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not cite any contrary law to dispute the assessee's contention on limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~93 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010928182024 + W.P.(C) 17227/2024

BRILLIANT METALS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nitin Kanwar, Mr. Dushyant Nayak, Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Mrdv. Shivam Jain and Mr. Abhishek Tuteja, Advs.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr.Rishabh Nangia

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE ADITI CHOUDHARY

O R D E R %

28.09.2026 1. On 13.12.2024, a Division Bench of this Court had allowed present writ petition, while observing thus:- “1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 31.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The petitioner also impugns the notice dated 10.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, and the order dated 31.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act prior to the issuance of the impugned notice. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in 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 30/09/2026 at 12:59:56

Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB. 4. Learned counsel, also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 and drew the attention of this Court to the following passages from the said judgment: “46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the “time limits specified under the provisions of” 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. *** *** *** 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. 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 30/09/2026 at 12:59:56

proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses.”

5.

In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevant (AY) 2017-18 expired on 31.03.2024. The impugned notice has been issued thereafter, and the same is thus barred by limitation. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the aforesaid view. 7. In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside. 8. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.”

2.

The respondent-Income Tax Department preferred an SLP against the above order which came to be disposed of by Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 16.07.2026, while relying upon the orders dated 10.04.2026 and 04.05.2026 passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.4716/2026 and Civil Appeal no.6922/2026 respectively and the matter has been remanded to consider if the proceedings are time barred. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examining the issue on limitation, we are of the view that the above view taken by this Court on the issue of limitation is correct in the eye of law, as no contrary law could be cited by the Revenue. 4. Following the reasoning given by this Court in its above quoted order dated 13.12.2024, the present writ petition is allowed. 5. The order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 so also the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.08.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18 are hereby quashed.

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 30/09/2026 at 12:59:56

6.

The writ petition is allowed.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

ADITI CHOUDHARY, J. SEPTEMBER 28, 2026 kk

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 30/09/2026 at 12:59:56

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →