Inthehighcourtofdelhiatnewdelhi+W.p.(C) v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralcircle 4, New Delhi & Anr

$~102 *INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+W.P.(C) 12544/2024 and CM APPL. 52188/2024RAKESH MAHAJAN.....Petitioner Through:Mr Sumit Lalchandani, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE 4, NEW DELHI & ANR......Respondents .....RespondentsThrough:Mr Sunil Agarwal, SSC with MrShivanshB.Pandya,MrViplavAcharya and Ms Priya Sarkar, JSCs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R05.05.2025 % 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “A. Issue any appropriate writ and/or order and/or directions todeclare Explanation 2 to the Section 148 of the Act as beingviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the extentto which it treats cases where incriminating material is foundand cases where no incriminating material is found on equalfooting; B. Issue a writ of and/or order and or directions in the natureof certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directionquashing impugned notice dated 31.03.2024 issued underSection 148 of the Act by the Respondent and the proceedingsinitiated pursuant thereto; C. Issue a writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature ofProhibition commanding Respondent to forebear from givingeffect to and/or taking any step whatsoever pursuant to and/orin furtherance of the said purported notice under Section 148of the Act and/or in any proceedings initiated thereunder fortheAY2013-14,andgrantstayontheassessmentproceedings.” 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the present petitionto assailing the notice dated 31.03.2024 [Impugned notice] issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] on the ground that theproceedings have been initiated beyond the period of limitation.3.The petitioner had filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 on 27.07.2013. On 20.07.2022, a search was conducted underSection 132 of the Act in respect of entities relating to the SMC Groupincluding the petitioner.Pursuant to the said search, the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice in respect of AY 2013-14.4.Concededly, the period of limitation during which a notice underSection 153A of the Act could be issued has expired.Consequently, byvirtue of the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, no notice under Section148 of the Act could be issued. The question as to the computation of theperiod of limitation for issuing a notice under Section 153A of the Act issquarely covered by the decision of this court in Principal Commissioner ofIncome-tax(Central-1)v.OjjusMedicare(P.)Ltd.:[2024]161taxmann.com 160 (Delhi). The court had held that the period of ten years interms of the Explanation 1 to Section 153A(1) of the Act is required to becomputed from the end of the assessment year relevant to the financial yearin which a search was conducted. A tabular statement setting out the periodof computation of ten years that would be covered by virtue of the Explanation1 to Section 153A of the Act is set out below: Date of Search – 20.07.2022 This chart is prepared in light of first proviso to Section 149 of the Act readwith Section 153A(1)(b) and Explanation 1 to Section 153A(1) of the Act 5.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugnednotice as well as all proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are set aside.Pending application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 5, 2025/tr TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.