> v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Cirle 2 New Delhi & Anr

$~59 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 3514/2025 & CM APPL. 16460-61/2025HAIER SMART HOME CO LTD.....PetitionerThrough:Mr Deepak Chopra, Mr Rohan and MrPriyam Bhatnagar, Advocates. versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRLE 2 NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through:Mr Sunil Aggarwal, SSC, Mr ShivanshB Pandya, Mr Viplav Acharya, Ms PriyaSarkar, JSCs and Mr Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R %21.03.2025 1.Issue notice. The learned counsel for the Revenue accepts notice. 2.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anotice dated 30.03.2024 [impugned notice] issued under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] in respect of the Assessment Year 2014-15. 3.It is the petitioner’s case that the initiation of the reassessmentproceedings pursuant to the impugned notice was barred by limitation.Proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act proscribe the issuance of notice under Section148A of the Act if the time period for issuance of notice under Section 153A,153C or 148 of the Act for the relevant assessment year expired. 4.In the present case, the impugned notice is premised on a searchconducted on 27.03.2023 under Section 132 of the Act in the case of HaierAppliances India Private Limited. The said search was conducted after31.03.2021, and the provisions for an Assessing Officer to record his satisfaction that the material, documents, or assets either belong to orcontained information relating to the assessee are no longer applicable. Inthe given circumstances, the period of limitation as contemplated underSection 153C of the Act is required to be reckoned with the reference to thedate on which the AO has decided to take action or reassessment. Thiswould be the date on which the AO issues the notice under Section 148 ofthe Act. 5.This issue is covered by various decision of this court including inDinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle20, Delhi & Others: Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC:4554-DB, KADHousing Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CentralCircle-6, Delhi : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:8214-DB as well as PankajJain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi &Anr. : Neutral Citation : 2025:DHC:157-DB. 6.In The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-1 v. OjjusMedicare Pvt. Ltd : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:2629-DB this court hadexplained that the block period of ten years is required to be computed fromthe end of the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the AOof the searched person has recorded its satisfaction and handed over thematerial or books of accounts to the AO of the assessee not being thesearched person. Thus, the block period of ten years is required to becomputed from the end of the AY 2024-25, which is relevant to the financialyear in which the impugned notice was issued. 7.Mr Chopra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hashanded over a tabular statement setting out the block period of ten years applicableto the assessment year that could be covered in such case. The said tabular statement is set out below:- Notice under Section 148 issued on30.03.2024, therefore, first Assessment 8.Mr Aggrawal, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairlystates that there is no cavil with the computation of application of blockperiod of ten years, as set out above. 9.In view of the above, the impugned notice and proceedings thereto areset aside. 10.The petition is allowed in above terms. Pending applications are alsodisposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J MARCH 21, 2025 M TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any