Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue preferred appeals against the order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The Assessing Officer (AO) had issued notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for these assessment years on March 30, 2023, following a search operation.
Held
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2013-14 and AY 2012-13 was beyond the period of ten assessment years as prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) and was therefore barred by limitation. Consequently, the notices and the assessment orders emanating from them were quashed.
Key Issues
Whether the notices issued under Section 148 for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 were beyond the prescribed limitation period under the amended law, thus invalidating the reassessment proceedings.
Sections Cited
148, 149(1)(b), 153A, 153C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-26, Delhi dated 18.11.2024 pertaining to A.Ys 2012-13 and 2013-14.
Page 1 of 6 and 538/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14] Divyansh Infracon Pvt Ltd 2. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that 2012-13 cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] and is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 167 taxmann.com
For A.Y 2013-14, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the same is time barred as notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued after the expiry of the surviving period. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has examined the technical issue involved in the case and has given relief to the assessee.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. The factual matrix of the instant case shows that there was a search on the assessee on 02.03.2022 in connection to Rajesh Rathi group. The AO issued notice u/s 148 to the assessee for AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 on 30.03.2023. The issue for our adjudication is whether the AO action to initiate the proceeding u/s 148 of the Act for the AY 2013-14 and AY 2012-13 is legally permissible under the amended law. We find that the CIT(A) has dealt with issues as under:
“In the instant case, there is no dispute to the fact that notices are required to be issued upto a block of ten-assessment year. However, the date to be reckoned is the date on which the notice under section Page 2 of 6 and 538/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14] Divyansh Infracon Pvt Ltd 148 was issued i,e 30.03.2023 in view of the proviso to section 149 of the Act because of reference to word " at that time". In simpler words, the proviso to section 149 of the Act states that no notice under section 148 shall be issued at any time in a case for the relevant assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of April, 2021, if a notice under section 148 or section 153A or section 153C could not have been issued at that time on account of being beyond the time limit specified under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section or section 153A or section 153C, as the case may be, as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021. 5.18 Based on the provisions of section 153A or 153C of the Act, the legal position settled by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court the computation of 10 assessment years, would be carried out as under. For the sake brevity, it may be reiterated that a notice under section 148 was issued on 30.03.2023 relating to AY 2023-24. This date is material in understanding the time limit for issuance of notice under section 153A that stood prior to amendment in Finance Act,2021. Accordingly, the computation of 10 assessment years, would be computed as under. Alternatively, whether the AO could have issued notice under section 153A of the Act on 30.03.2023 for AY 2012-13. As mentioned above, under section 153A, a notice shall be issued by the AO upto 10 assessment years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Here the relevant assessment year is AY 2023-24. Accordingly, the computation of 10-year block-period is carried out as under. 1st year AY 2023-24; 2nd year AY 2022-23; 3rd year AY 2021-22; 4th year AY 2020-21; 5th year AY 2019-20; 6th year AY 2018-19; 7th year AY 2017-18; 8th year AY 2016-17; 9th year AY 2015-16; and 10th year AY 2014-15. 5.19 In view of the above, the assessment year 2013-14, which is under consideration, clearly falls outside the scope of application of section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is found to be correct on this count. Accordingly, following the aforesaid legal position and decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT, Central-1 vs Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. [TS-5183- HC-2024(Delhi)-O] in the light of principles of judicial discipline, the Page 3 of 6 and 538/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14] Divyansh Infracon Pvt Ltd impugned assessment order is beyond the limitation prescribed under 148 of the Act, and hence, the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer is not tenable in the light of aforesaid legal positions. As a result, the appeal is allowed. As the appellant succeeds on this jurisdictional grounds, other grounds on jurisdiction as well as the substantive grounds on the quantum addition is not adjudicated being infructuous”.
We are inclined to endorse the view of the CIT(A) and accordingly we hold that the notice issued u/s 148 for AY 2013-14 as well as AY 2012- 13 in the instant case, is beyond the period of ten assessment years as prescribed under the provisions of section 149(1)(b) and is therefore barred by limitation. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jasjit Singh 458 ITR 437(SC) and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt Ltd & Others [2024] 161 taxmann.com 160 (Delhi) order dated 03.04.2024. We therefore have no hesitation in quashing the notices u/s 148 for AY 2012- 13 and AY 2013-14. In light of the above, we also quash the assessment order emanating out of such notice u/s 148 of the Act. Since the notice u/s 148 is quashed, no separate adjudication is made on other jurisdictional ground.
Further, as the assessment order has been quashed, all the issues raised by the Revenue in its appeals which deal with the merits of the case become academic and infructuous and require no separate
Page 4 of 6 and 538/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14] Divyansh Infracon Pvt Ltd adjudication. Grounds raised by the Revenue in both the appeals stand dismissed.
In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in and 538/DEL/2025 stand dismissed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 27.10.2025.