Of Income-Tax, Central-3 v. “38. It Is Pertinent To Note That A Reference To Sections 147

$~85 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 5424/2025 and CM APPLs. 24720-21/2025VIKAS AGGARWAL.....PetitionerThrough:Mr Gaurav Jain with Mr ShubhamGupta and Ms Shalini, Advocates.VIKAS AGGARWAL.....PetitionerThrough:Mr Gaurav Jain with Mr ShubhamGupta and Ms Shalini, Advocates.versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALCIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI.....Respondent Through:Mr Gaurav Gupta, SSC with MrShivendra Singh and Mr Yojit Pareek,JSCs.Shivendra Singh and Mr Yojit Pareek,JSCs. % CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R28.04.2025 1.Issue notice. Mr Gupta, the learned counsel for the Revenue accepts notice. 2.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning thenotice dated 31.03.2025 [impugned notice] issued under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of Assessment Year 2015-16. 3.The impugned notice is clearly beyond the period as stipulated underSection 149(1) of the Act. However, it is the Revenue’s case that the saidnotice is within the time by virtue of Section 150 of the Act. The Revenueclaims that the notice is premised on the ‘findings and directions’ asembodied in the decision of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2025 at 12:27:22 of Income-tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.: (2024) 2 SCC 433.In the said decision, the Supreme Court had held that in certain cases, theAssessing Officer could exercise its powers under Section 147/148 ofthe Act even in cases, which are related to a search conducted under Section132 of the Act. The Revenue construes the decision as constituting a findingor a direction for issuing such notice in respect of cases such as of theassessee’s. 4.The question whether the decision in the case ofPrincipalCommissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.(supra) constitutes a finding or a direction for permitting the issuance ofnotices 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 147 and 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 in anyincriminating material being found, the only remedy thatwould be available to the Revenue would be to resort toreassessment.paragraph 33 of the report and where the Supreme Courtobserved that in cases where a search does not result in anyincriminating material being found, the only remedy thatwould be available to the Revenue would be to resort toreassessment. 39. However, the Supreme Court caveated that observationby observing that the initiation of reassessment would beby observing that the initiation of reassessment would be “…..subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned inSections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannotbe left with no remedy”. This sentiment came to bereiterated with the Supreme Court observing that the powerof the Revenue to initiate reassessment must be savedSections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannotbe left with no remedy”. This sentiment came to bereiterated with the Supreme Court observing that the powerof the Revenue to initiate reassessment must be saved This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2025 at 12:27:22 “…..subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned inSections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannotbe left with no remedy”. This sentiment came to bereiterated with the Supreme Court observing that the powerof the Revenue to initiate reassessment must be savedSections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannotbe left with no remedy”. This sentiment came to bereiterated with the Supreme Court observing that the powerof the Revenue to initiate reassessment must be saved This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2025 at 12:27:22 failing which it would be left with no remedy. It wasthereafter observed in paragraph 36.4 of the report thatinsofarascompletedorunabatedassessmentswereconcerned, they could be reopened by the AO by invocationof Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to the fulfilment ofthe conditions “……as envisaged/mentioned under Sections147/148 of the Act and 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 thatpowerbeingotherwisecompliantwiththeChapterpertaining to reassessment as contained in the Act. Theobservations of the Supreme Court cannot possibly be reador construed as a carte blanche enabling the respondents toovercome and override the restrictions that otherwise appearin Section 149 of the Act. The observations of the SupremeCourt in Abhisar Buildwell were thus intended to merelyconvey that the annulment of the search assessments wouldnot deprive or denude the Revenue of its power to reassessand which independently existed. However, the SupremeCourt being mindful of the statutory prescriptions, whichotherwiseimbuethecommencement ofreassessment,qualified that observation by providing that such an actionwould have to be in accordance with law. This note ofcaution appears at more than one place in that judgment andis apparent from the Supreme Court observing that thepower to reassess would be subject to the fulfilment of theconditions mentioned in Sections 147 and 148 of the Act.” 5.Plainly, the controversy involved in the present petition is covered bythe decision of this Court in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v. AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax Cental Circle-28 Delhi & Ors. (supra). Thecontention that the time as stipulated under Section 149 of the Act is notapplicable, in the given facts, is erroneous and is rejected. 6. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned notice is set This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2025 at 12:27:22 aside. All pending applications are also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 28, 2025/tr TEJAS KARIA, JClick here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2025 at 12:27:22