PRITHVEELINK BUILDWELL PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 25, DLEHI AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16680/2024HC DelhiDLHC01088241202405 December 2024Author: 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 held that the issue of limitation concerning the notice under Section 148 was covered in favour of the petitioner by its earlier decisions. Specifically, the Court referred to its own judgments in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others, The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – Central-1 vs. Ojjas Medicare Pvt. Limited, and KAD Housing Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central 6 Delhi. Based on these precedents, the Court found that the impugned notice was indeed issued beyond the period of limitation. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned notice was set aside. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 is issued beyond the prescribed limitation period, it is liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prithveelink Buildwell Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice pertains to assessment year (AY) 2015-16. The core of the petitioner's contention is that the notice was issued beyond the statutory period of limitation. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 25, Delhi, and others. The matter was heard by the Delhi High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2015-16 is barred by limitation? The petitioner argued that the notice is time-barred. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The Court considered the issue of limitation in relation to the notice issued under Section 148.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16680/2024 CM APPL. 70591/2024

PRITHVEELINK BUILDWELL PVT LTD .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Somil Agarwal, Advocate

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 25, DLEHI AND ORS .....Respondent

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

05.12.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of assessment year (AY) 2015-16. It is the petitioner’s contention is that the notice is issued beyond the period of limitation. 2. Concededly, the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by the earlier decisions of this Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:4554-DB, The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax – Central-1 vs. Ojjas Medicare Pvt. Limited Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:2629-DB and KAD Housing Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central 6 Delhi Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:8214-DB.

3.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 05, 2024 Aj

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

More judgments on Section 148

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →