JHS SVENDGAARD LABORATORIES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/14601/2024HC DelhiDLHC01071015202418 October 2024Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned notice. The Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner, concerning the issuance of the notice beyond the prescribed period, was covered in favour of the assessee by a previous decision of the same Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors. The Court found no reason to deviate from this established precedent. Consequently, the notice initiating re-assessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 was quashed. No other issues were decided, and no part of the dispute was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, JHS Svendgaard Laboratories Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for initiating re-assessment proceedings for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The petitioner's primary contention was that the impugned notice was issued beyond the prescribed statutory period. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-31, Delhi. The High Court of Delhi was seized of this matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.08.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for initiation of re-assessment proceedings for AY 2017-18, is valid, considering it was allegedly issued beyond the prescribed period? (Question of law/mixed law and fact, turning on Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's contention: The impugned notice has been issued beyond the prescribed period. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the validity of the notice or the period of issuance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14601/2024 JHS SVENDGAARD LABORATORIES LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Shubham Gupta, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr Siddhartha Sinha, Senior Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 18.10.2024 CM APPL. 61329/2024(Exemption) 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 14601/2024 and CM APPL. 61328/2024 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 31.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for initiation of the re-assessment proceedings in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2017- 18. 4. It is the petitioner’s case that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the prescribed period. 5. Concededly, the said issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:5411-DB.

6.

The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. 7. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J OCTOBER 18, 2024 RK Click here to check corrigendum, if any

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →