HARVINDER SINGH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4717/2023HC DelhiDLHC01013259202303 April 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice and order dated July 31, 2022. The Court's decision was based on its prior judgment in Twylight Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2024 SCC OnLine Del 330]. The primary reason for quashing was the absence of approval from the specified authority as mandated by Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. However, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings, if deemed necessary and in accordance with the law. The rights and contentions of both parties were preserved in the event of the revenue initiating new proceedings. The Court explicitly followed the reasoning and directions outlined in paragraphs 28 to 30 of the Twylight Infrastructure judgment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Harvinder Singh, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice and an order dated July 31, 2022. The respondents were the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another authority. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner sought to quash the impugned notice and order. The High Court considered the arguments presented by both the petitioner and the revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice and order dated July 31, 2022, are valid, considering the provisions of Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding the approval of the specified authority for reassessment proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the impugned notice and order were invalid due to a lack of proper approval from the specified authority as required by Section 151(ii). Revenue's Contention: The revenue maintained its position but sought liberty to commence reassessment proceedings afresh if the impugned orders and notices were set aside based on prior judgments. The revenue relied on the judgment in Ganesh Dass Khanna.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 151(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4717/2023

HARVINDER SINGH

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr.V.K.Sabharwal and

Mr.R.B.Gupta, Advs.

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.Gaurav Gupta, Sr.SC with

Mr.Shivendra Singh, Jr.SC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR

KAURAV

O R D E R %

03.04.2024

1.

On hearing learned counsels for parties, we find that the issues and the challenge raised, stands concluded in light of the judgment rendered by the Court in Twylight Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2024 SCC OnLine Del 330]. 2. Accordingly, for the reasons assigned in the aforenoted judgment, we allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned notice and order dated 31 July 2022, subject to liberty reserved as per paragraph Nos. 28 to 30 of Twylight Infrastructure, and which read as under: “28. Before us, the counsel for the revenue continue to hold this position. The only liberty that they seek is that if, based on the judgment in Ganesh Dass Khanna, the impugned orders and notices are set aside, liberty be given to the revenue to commence reassessment proceedings afresh. 29. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid, the impugned notices and orders in each of the above-captioned writ petitions are 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 06/04/2024 at 12:04:31

quashed on the ground that there is no approval of the specified authority, as indicated in Section 151(ii) of the Act. The direction is issued with the caveat that the revenue will have liberty to take steps, if deemed necessary, albeit as per law. 30. Needless to add, the rights and contentions of both the sides will remain open, in the event the revenue triggers reassessment proceedings.” 3. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. APRIL 03, 2024/MJ

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 06/04/2024 at 12:04:31

More judgments on Section 151(ii)

All 123 judgments and leading authorities on Section 151(ii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →