> v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 15 New Delhi And Ors

$~95 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 14380/2024 & CM APPL. 60161-62/2024RAVI STEEL AND RENEWABLES PVT LTD .....PetitionerThrough:Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr Somil Agarwal,Mr Dushyant Agarwal, Ms SonaliMaurya, Advocates.Mr Dushyant Agarwal, Ms SonaliMaurya, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE 15 NEW DELHI AND ORS .....RespondentsThrough:Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms.ZehraKhan, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSCsMs.AnaunttaShankar,Ms.YashikaGupta, Advocates. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R%14.10.2024 1.Issue notice. 2.The learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. 3.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning thenotice dated 30.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) seeking toreopen the petitioner’s assessment for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 4.The petitioner has raised several questions including challenge to theconstitutional vires of explanation 2 of Section 148 of the Act. However, thelearned counsel for the petitioner has confined the petition to challenging the impugned notice on the ground that it is barred by limitation. 5.The petitioner is a company and claims to be engaged in the businessof trading of Iron Steel and allied products. The petitioner had filed itsoriginal return for the AY 2015-16 on 29.05.2015 declaring a total incomeof ₹64,31,690/-. 6.A search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 18.10.2019at the residential premises of certain persons comprising of Alankit Group.The petitioner’s Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (hereafter the AO) receivedinformation relating to certain transactions entered into between thepetitioner and the searched parties during the years relevant to the AY 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2017-18. Based on such information, the AO hadinitiated the proceedings for reassessment of the petitioner’s income for therelevant years and passed the assessment order dated 22.02.2024 underSection 153C of the Act. 7.Apparently, another search was conducted in respect of another group– Gaur Group and related entities on 02.03.2022 – by the InvestigationWing. According to the Revenue, certain incriminating material was foundduring the search, which warranted reopening of the petitioner’s assessmentfor the AY 2015-16. 8.It is in the aforesaid context that the AO had issued the impugnednotice. The limited question that falls for the consideration of this Court is -whether the impugned notice is beyond the period of limitation as prescribedunder Section 149 of the Act. 9.According to the petitioner, it is not open for the AO to reopen theassessment for the previous year relevant to the AY 2015-16 as it wasclearly beyond the period of limitation from the date of issuance of the impugned notice. The controversy is, essentially, relates to the date fromwhich the period of ten years is to be computed for issuance of the noticeunder Section 149 of the Act. 10.Concededly, said issue is covered by the earlier decisions of thisCourt in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.:2024 SCC OnLine Del 4230 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2439. Interms of the said decisions, the period of ten years is required to becomputed from the end of the assessment year in which the notice underSection 148 of the Act is issued. In the present case, there is no cavil thatthe AY 2015-16 falls beyond the period of ten years from the date of theissuance of the impugned notice. 11.Accordingly, the impugned notice is set aside on the ground that it hasbeen issued beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 148of the Act. 12.The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pendingapplications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 14, 2024 M SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J