HARVINDER SINGH (HUF) vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/6045/2023HC DelhiDLHC01017361202315 March 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 order dated July 30, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential reassessment proceedings. The Court found that the issues and challenge raised were concluded by its prior judgment in Twylight Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2024 SCC OnLine Del 330]. The primary reasoning was the absence of approval from the specified authority as required under Section 151(ii) of the Act. The quashing was subject to liberty reserved for the revenue to commence reassessment proceedings afresh, if deemed necessary and as per law, with the caveat that the rights and contentions of both sides would remain open in such an event. The Court explicitly followed the directions and reasoning laid out in paragraphs 28 to 30 of the Twylight Infrastructure judgment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Harvinder Singh (HUF), filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated July 30, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential reassessment proceedings initiated by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and another respondent. The procedural history leading to this challenge is not detailed in the judgment. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential reassessment proceedings are valid, considering the requirement of approval from the specified authority under Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to a lack of proper approval from the specified authority as mandated by Section 151(ii) of the Act. The revenue's position, as reflected in the cited precedent, was that if the impugned orders and notices were set aside on this ground, liberty should be granted to commence reassessment proceedings afresh, in accordance with law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6045/2023

HARVINDER SINGH (HUF)

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. V.K. Sabharwal, Mr. R.B. Gupta, Advs.

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Parth Semwal, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

15.03.2024 O R D E R 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 order dated 30 July 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings initiated thereto, 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 18/03/2024 at 15:42:25

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. MARCH 15, 2024/neha

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 18/03/2024 at 15:42:25

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →