> v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 30, Delhi & Anr

$~40 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 13411/2024 and CM APPL. 56094/2024PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LIMITED.....PetitionerThrough:Ms Ragini Handa, Mr Ajay Wadhwaand Mr Ujjawal Jain, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 30, DELHI & ANR......RespondentsThrough:Mr Anurag Ojha, Senior StandingCounsel with Mr V.K. Saksena, MsHemlata Rawat, Mr Subham Kumarand Mr Dipak Raj, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELAO R D E R16.01.2025 % 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anotice dated 02.05.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for theassessment year (AY) 2013-14. 2.The petitioner also impugns the notice issued under Section 148A(b)of the Act, and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act prior tothe issuance of the impugned notice. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that theissue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v.IncomeTaxOfficerWard-70(1)&Ors:NeutralCitation:2024:DHC:5411-DB. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. RajeevBansal : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 and drew the attention of this Court tothe following passages from the said judgment: “46. The ingredients of the proviso could bebroken down for analysis as follows: (i) no noticeunder Section 148 of the new regime can be issuedat any time for an assessment year beginning on orbefore 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the timewhen the notice is sought to be issued because ofthe “time limits specified under the provisions of”149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice couldbe issued under Section 148 of the new regime forassessment year 2021-2022 and before only if thetime 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) requiresthe determination ofwhetherthetimelimitprescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the oldregime continues to exist for the assessment year2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice underSection 148 of the new regime cannot be issued ifthe period of six years from the end of the relevantassessment year has expired at the time of issuanceof the notice. This also ensures that the new timelimitoftenyearsprescribedunderSection149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively.For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013,the ten year period would have expired on 31March 2023, while the six year period expired on31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue couldhave had the power to reopen assessments for theyear2012-2013iftheescapedassessmentamounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. TheprovisolimitstheretrospectiveoperationofSection 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses.” 5.In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevant(AY) 2013-14 expired on 31.03.2020. The impugned notice has been issuedthereafter, and the same is thus barred by limitation. 6.The learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the aforesaidview. 7.In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside. 8.The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applicationalso stands disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, JJANUARY 16, 2025RKClick here to check corrigendum, if any