BASANT PROJECTS LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(2) DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17543/2024HC DelhiDLHC01095312202419 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 31.08.2024. The Court followed its earlier decision in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others. In that decision, it was held that the ten-year period for reckoning limitation for a Section 148 notice is to be calculated from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the notice is issued. The petitioner's tabular statement, which showed that AY 2014-15 fell outside the ten-year period from the date of issuance of the notice, was accepted by the Revenue. Therefore, the notice was found to be barred by limitation. The pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Basant Projects Limited, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This notice pertained to Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The petitioner's primary contention was that the impugned notice was barred by limitation. The Revenue's counsel accepted notice and concurred with the petitioner's tabular statement regarding the limitation period.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2014-15 is barred by limitation? Assessee's contention: The notice is barred by limitation. The petitioner relied on the decision of this court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4554-DB), which held that the ten-year period for issuing a Section 148 notice should be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the notice is issued. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for the Revenue concurred with the petitioner's tabular statement indicating that the notice for AY 2014-15 was time-barred.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17543/2024 & CM APPL. 74710-11/2024 BASANT PROJECTS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Ruchesh Sinha and Ms Monalisa Maity, Advocates. versus DCIT CIRCLE 4(2) DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms. Zehra Khan, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSCs Mr. Kanishk Aggarwal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 19.12.2024 1. Issue notice. The learned counsel for the Revenue accepts notice. 2. 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) in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2014-15. The petitioner contends that the impugned notice is barred by the limitation. 3. Concededly, the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by an 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. In terms of the said decision, the period of ten years is required to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued. The petitioner has set out a tabular statement indicating ten years 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 01/07/2025 at 19:49:30

that would be covered within the period of limitation. The said tabular statement is set out below:- Sr. No. A Y Years Narration 1 2025-26 1 1st year 2 2024-25 2 2nd year 3 2023-24 3 3rd year 4 2022-23 4 4th year 5 2021-22 5 5th year 6 2020-21 6 6th year 7 2019-20 7 7th year 8 2018-19 8 8th year 9 2017-18 9 9th year 10 2016-17 10 10th year 11 2015-16 11 Time Barred 12 2014-15 12 Time Barred 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue concurs with the said tabular statement. 5. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. Pending applications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 19, 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 01/07/2025 at 19:49:30

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →