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

$~91 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 16679/2024 & CM APPL. 70589-90/2024ANGELS INFRAHEIGHT PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through:Mr Ved Jain, Mr Nishay Kantoor, MsSonia Dodeja Mr Divyansh, and MrGovind Gupta, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCENTRAL CIRCLE 15 DELHI & ORS. .....RespondentsThrough:MrIndrujSinghRai,SSC,MrSanjeev Menon and Mr Rahul Singh,JSCs and Mr Anmol Jagga, Advocatefor the Revenue.Ms Anju Tyagi Adv/SPC for R4 CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R03.12.2024 % 1.Issue notice. The learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice.2.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning thenotice dated 29.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) seeking toreopen the petitioner’s assessment in respect of the assessment year (AY)2015-16. 3.It is the petitioner’s case that the impugned notice has been issuedbeyond the period of the limitation as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. 4.Concededly, the issue involved in the present case is covered by theearlier decision of this court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4554-DB as well as the decision in the case of The Pr. Commissionerof Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd: Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:2629-DB. 5.In the present case, the impugned notice has been issued during thefinancial year 2024-25, which is relevant to the AY 2025-26. Therefore, theperiod of the limitation is required to be computed from the end of AY2025-26. And, AY 2015-16 is beyond the period of ten years from the endof the AY 2025-26. 6.The impugned notice is, accordingly, set aside as being barred bylimitation. 7.The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pendingapplications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 03, 2024 M SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any $~82 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 16641/2024 & CM APPL. 70397-98/2024JAY SHIVA EARTHMOVERS AND CONSTRUCTIONPRIVATE LIMITED .....PetitionerThrough:Mr Kapil Goel and Mr Sandeep Goel,Advocates.Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(3) DELHI .....RespondentThrough:MrGauravGupta,SSC,MrShivendra Singh and Mr Yojit Pareek,JSCs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 03.12.2024 1.Issue notice. The learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice. 2.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning thenotice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 (hereafter the impugnednotice) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) seeking to reopenthe petitioner’s assessment in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 3.It is the petitioner’s case that the impugned notice has been issuedbeyond the period of the limitation as prescribed under Section 149 of theAct. 4.Concededly, the issue involved in the present case is covered by theearlier decision of this court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4554-DB as well as the decision in the case of The Pr. Commissionerof Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd: Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:2629-DB. 8.In the present case, the impugned notice has been issued during thefinancial year 2024-25, which is relevant to the AY 2025-26. Therefore, theperiod of the limitation is required to be computed from the end of AY2025-26. And, AY 2015-16 is beyond the period of ten years from the endof the AY 2025-26. 5.The impugned notice is, accordingly, set aside as being barred bylimitation. 6.The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pendingapplications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 03, 2024 M SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4554-DB as well as the decision in the case of The Pr. Commissionerof Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd: Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:2629-DB. 8.In the present case, the impugned notice has been issued during thefinancial year 2024-25, which is relevant to the AY 2025-26. Therefore, theperiod of the limitation is required to be computed from the end of AY2025-26. And, AY 2015-16 is beyond the period of ten years from the endof the AY 2025-26. 5.The impugned notice is, accordingly, set aside as being barred bylimitation. 6.The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pendingapplications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J DECEMBER 03, 2024 M SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any