PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. STAR WIRE INDIA LTD.

$~237 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 738/2025, CM APPL. 77402/2025, CM APPL. 77403/2025

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Praujal Singh, Adv.

versus

STAR WIRE INDIA LTD.

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Jain & Mr. Samarth Choudhari, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

04.02.2026 1. In the appeal in hands relates to Assessment Years 2015-16, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench “G” New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal has quashed the re-assessment proceedings vide the impugned order dated 31.12.2024 while holding that the ground for which the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “AO”) had issued notice of re-assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961”) no additions were made in the corresponding Assessment Order dated 29.05.2023. 2. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2011] 336 ITR 136 (Del) and ATS Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. v. ACIT reported in [2025] 473 ITR 595 (Del), and held that since the reason for which the assessment was re-opened itself did not exist, the AO could not proceed further and assess 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 06/02/2026 at 12:52:55

the other income of the respondent-assessee. 3. Mr. Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the respondent at the outset submitted that, since the notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021 and AY 2014-15, the notice was in any case time-barred, as has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in [2024] 469 ITR 46. 4. Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel is not in a position to dispute this legal position. 5. We, therefore, affirm the order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the Tribunal as being covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory (supra), so also hold that the proceedings are time barred and beyond jurisdiction in light of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra). 6. The appeals are therefore, dismissed. 7. Pending applications are also disposed of.