CLAN LABORATORIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE WARD-1(2), CHENNAI

We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for the respondent(s) who has appeared on caveat.

It has been submitted at the bar that this Special Leave Petition could be disposed of by following the order dated 17.01.2025 passed in the case of the Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Jaipur vs. R.K.Build Creations Private Limited (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).59625 of 2024). For ease of reference the aforesaid order reads as under:

Consequently, following the aforesaid order, this Special Leave Petition is dismissed as it does not survive for further consideration.

In this regard, reference could also be made to paragraph 19(e) and (f) in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No.8629 of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754) under which the learned Additional Solicitor General for India has made a concession insofar as the assessment year 2015-16 is concerned. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

In similar circumstances, the juri ictional High Court in case of Sridhar Lokesh Vs Income Tax Officer & Ors dated 28.11.2024 in W.P.No.16526 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.15816 and 15817 of 2022 has held quashed the notice dated 04.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 as under: Commissioner of Income Tax [(2024) 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)]. In paras 29 and 30, the Court has examined the issue in the light of the 1st and 3 16. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ibibo Group Private Limited Vs ACIT [W.P.(C).17639/2022 dated 13.12.2024] has held quashed

12.2024

The instant writ petition assails the reassessment action initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] for Assessment Year [“AY”] 2015-2016. The petitioner has impugned the order referable to Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 23 July 2022 and the consequential notice under Section 148 of the Act which came to be issued on the same date.

We bear in mind the following concession which came to be recorded on behalf of the respondent before the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693] and relevant parts whereof are reproduced hereinbelow:-

In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the impugned reassessment action for AY 2015-16 would not sustain.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 23 July 2022 and consequential notice referable to Section 148 of even date are hereby quashed and set aside.

In the case on hand, we find that the notice u/s.148 was issued on 01.04.2021 for A.Y.2015-16, which is directly in conflict with the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC Online 754. Therefore, the all consequential proceedings pursuant to notice u/s 148 of the Act cannot be held as valid, once the foundation fails.

In respect of case law cited by the revenue, we find that Hon’ble juri ictional High Court in the case of Ramadoss Srikanthi Vs. ACIT [2025] 174 taxmann.com 150 (Madras) [03.04.2025] decided the issue in favour of the revenue, where the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2021, when Finance Act, 2021 was not even introduced.

In view of the above reasoning and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (referred supra), we are of the considered view that the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is clearly barred by limitation and consequently the order of the ld.CIT(A) and the AO are set aside.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.

िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF