Act. The Revenue Claims That The Impugned Notice Is Premised On The‘findings And Directions’ As Embodied In The Decision Of The Supreme Courtin Principal Commis v. However,Thesupremecourtcaveatedthatobservationbyobservingthattheinitiationofreassessment Would Be “…

$~67 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 699/2025 G D GOENKA TOURISM CORP LTD......PetitionerThrough:Mr Mani Bhadra Jain, Advocate.versusThrough:Mr Mani Bhadra Jain, Advocate.versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through:Mr Indruj Singh Rai, senior standingcounsel with Mr Sanjeev Menon, MrRahul Singh, Mr Anmol Jagga andMr Gaurav Kumar, Advocates.counsel with Mr Sanjeev Menon, MrRahul Singh, Mr Anmol Jagga andMr Gaurav Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELAO R D E R%20.01.2025 CM APPL. 3342/2025 1.Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 699/2025 and CM APPL. 3341/2025 3.Issue notice. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue accepts notice. 5.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anotice dated 25.09.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of theassessment year (AY) 2013-14.notice dated 25.09.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of theassessment year (AY) 2013-14. 6.The impugned notice is clearly beyond the period of limitation asstipulated under Section 149(1) of the Act. However, it is the Revenue’scase that the impugned notice is within time by virtue of Section 150 of the Act. The Revenue claims that the impugned notice is premised on the‘findings and directions’ as embodied in the decision of the Supreme Courtin Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell(P.) Ltd.: (2024) 2 SCC 433. In the said decision, the Supreme Court hadheld that in certain cases, the Assessing Officer (AO) could exercise itspowers under Section 147/148 of the Act, even in cases which are related toa search conducted under Section 132 of the Act. The Revenue construes thedecision as constituting a finding or a direction for issuing such notices inrespect of cases such of the Assessee’s. 7.The question whether the decision in the case ofPrincipalCommissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.(supra) constitutes a finding and a direction for permitting the issuance of anotice under Section 148 of the Act in cases, which are otherwise beyondthe period as stipulated under Section 149 of the Act is no longer resintegra. This court in the case of ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental Circle-28 Delhi & Ors.:NeutralCitationNo.:2024:DHC:7423-DBhadrejectedasimilarcontention. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: “38. It is pertinent to note that a reference to Sections 147and 148 of the Act in Abhisar Buildwell firstly appears inparagraph 33 of the report and where the Supreme Courtobserved that in cases where a search does not result inany incriminating material being found, the only remedythat would be available to the Revenue would be to resortto reassessment. 39.However,theSupremeCourtcaveatedthatobservationbyobservingthattheinitiationofreassessment would be “…..subject to fulfilment of theconditions mentioned in Sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannot be left with no remedy”.This sentiment came to be reiterated with the SupremeCourt observing that the power of the Revenue to initiatereassessment must be saved failing which it would be leftwith no remedy. It was thereafter observed in paragraph36.4 of the report that insofar as completed or unabatedassessments were concerned, they could be reopened bythe AO by invocation of Sections 147/148 of the Act,subject to the fulfillment of the conditions “……asenvisaged/mentioned under Sections 147/148 of the Actand those powers are saved”. 39.However,theSupremeCourtcaveatedthatobservationbyobservingthattheinitiationofreassessment would be “…..subject to fulfilment of theconditions mentioned in Sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannot be left with no remedy”.This sentiment came to be reiterated with the SupremeCourt observing that the power of the Revenue to initiatereassessment must be saved failing which it would be leftwith no remedy. It was thereafter observed in paragraph36.4 of the report that insofar as completed or unabatedassessments were concerned, they could be reopened bythe AO by invocation of Sections 147/148 of the Act,subject to the fulfillment of the conditions “……asenvisaged/mentioned under Sections 147/148 of the Actand those powers are saved”. 40. It thus becomes apparent that the liberty which theSupreme Court accorded and the limited right inhering inthe Revenue to initiate reassessment was subject to thatpower being otherwise compliant with the Chapterpertaining to reassessment as contained in the Act. Theobservations of the Supreme Court cannot possibly beread or construed as a carte blanche enabling therespondents to overcome and override the restrictions thatotherwise appear in Section 149 of the Act. Theobservations of the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwellwere thus intended to merely convey that the annulmentof the search assessments would not deprive or denude theRevenue of its power to reassess and which independentlyexisted. However, the Supreme Court being mindful ofthe statutory prescriptions, which otherwise imbue thecommencementofreassessment,qualifiedthatobservation by providing that such an action would haveto be in accordance with law. This note of caution appearsat more than one place in that judgment and is apparentfrom the Supreme Court observing that the power toreassess would be subject to the fulfilment of theconditions mentioned in Sections 147 and 148 of the Act.” 8.Plainly, the controversy involved in this petition is covered by thedecision of this court in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental Circle-28 Delhi & Ors. (supra). Thecontention that the time-period as stipulated under Section 149 of the Act isnot applicable, in the given facts, is erroneous and thus rejected. 9.The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned notice is setaside. Pending application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ JANUARY 20, 2025RK TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J