Ilc Infracon Limited v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 12 (1)Delhi

$~73 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 14313/2024 ILC INFRACON LIMITED.....PetitionerThrough:Mr Gaurav Jain, Mr Rahul Prabhakarand Mr Shubhajm Gupta, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 12 (1)DELHI .....RespondentThrough:Ms Hemlata Rawat, Mr V.K. Saksenaand Mr Dipak Raj, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMAO R D E R%09.10.2024 CM APPL. 59922/2024 (Exemption) 1.Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 14313/2024 and CM APPL. 59921/2024 3.The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated31.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereafter the Act) as well as the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued underSection 148 of the Act in respect of assessment year 2017-18. The petitionercontends that the said notice was barred by limitation. 4.Concededly, this issue is covered by the decision of a CoordinateBench of this Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1)& Ors.: Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:5411-DB. 5.It is also relevant to refer to the recent decision of the Supreme Courtin Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held as under: “46. The ingredients of the proviso could be brokendown for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for anassessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021;(ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought tobe issued because of the “time limits specified under theprovisions of” 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, anotice could be issued under Section 148 of the newregime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before onlyif the time limit for issuance of such notice continued toexist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. ********* 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires thedetermination of whether the time limit prescribedunder Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues toexist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before.Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the newregime cannot be issued if the period of six years fromthe end of the relevant assessment year has expired atthe time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures thatthe new time limit of ten years prescribed under Section149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. Forexample, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the tenyear period would have expired on 31 March 2023,while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019.Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the newregime, the Revenue could have had the power toreopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if theescaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs ormore. The proviso limits the retrospective operation ofSection149(1)(b)toprotecttheinterestsoftheassesses.” 6.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugnedorder dated 31.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act are set aside.7.The application is also disposed of.7.The application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, JOCTOBER 09, 2024RKClick here to check corrigendum, if any