In Mon Mohan Kohli v. In The Present Case, The Ao Provided Such Information By Issuing Anotice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act On 01.06.2022. The Petitioner Wasgranted Time Till 16.

$~56 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 3654/2023 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7-1, DELHI & ANR......RespondentsThrough:Mr Vipul Agrawal, senior standingcounsel with Ms Sakashi Shairwaland Mr Akshat Singh, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R28.03.2025 % 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anotice dated 29.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of Assessment Year 2013-14. It is thepetitioner’s case that the said notice has been issued beyond the period oflimitation. 2.The Assessing Officer had issued a notice under Section 148 ofthe Act in respect of AY 2013-14 on 30.06.2021. Although, the said noticewas issued after 31.03.2021, it was issued in accordance with the statutoryregime of reassessment (Section 147 to 151 of the Act) as was in force priorto 01.04.2021. 3.The petitions challenging the said notices were allowed by this court, in Mon Mohan Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.:Neutral Citation No.: 2021:DHC:4181-DB. Several other High Courts hadalso quashed similar notices. The orders passed by this court and otherCourts setting aside such notices were appealed by the Revenue before theSupreme Court. In Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal: (2023) 1 SCC617, the Supreme Court passed directions under Article 142 of theConstitution of India, directing that such notices issued under Section 148 ofthe Act be construed as the notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act. TheAO was also directed to provide the information required to accompanynotices under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 4.In the present case, the AO provided such information by issuing anotice under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 01.06.2022. The petitioner wasgranted time till 16.06.2022 to respond to the said notice. The petitionerfurnished his response on 11.06.2022. 5.Since the notice under Section 148 of the Act – which was directed tobe construed as a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act in terms of thedecision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal(supra)] – was issued on the last date of expiry of limitation as extended byvirtue of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of CertainProvisions) Act, 2020, the AO had no time available for issuance of a noticeunder Section 148 of the Act. Therefore, the Fourth Proviso to Section149(1) of the Act is applicable and the AO had a further period of sevendays for issuance a notice under Section 148 of the Act.However, thenotice was not issued within the said period of seven days; that is on orbefore 23.06.2022. In view of the above, the present notice has been issuedbeyond the period of limitation. 6.It is material to note that the AO had also issued another notice dated27.06.2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act and the petitioner wasprovided fifteen days’ time to respond to the same. The said period expiredon 12.07.2022. Even if the period of limitation is reckoned from the end ofthe period of fifteen days provided to the petitioner for responding to thenotice dated 27.06.2022, the said period would expire on 19.07.2022. 7.The aforesaid issue is covered by the decision of this Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr.: NeutralCitation No.: 2025:DHC:547-DB. The learned counsel appearing for theRevenue does not dispute the same. 8.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugnednotice and all proceedings emanating therefrom are set aside. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 28, 2025RK TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any