Prabhjot Singh Likhari v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors

$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3491/2023 PRABHJOT SINGH LIKHARI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal and Ms. Manisha Sharma, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vipul Agrawal, SSC with Mr. Gooraang Ranjan, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR O R D E R% 17.02.2025 1.We take note of the challenge which stands raised to the reassessment action for Assessment Year [“AY”] 2014-15 and the solitary question remaining being that of surviving period. 2.Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, draws our attention to the following tabular statement :- “SUMMARY CHART A.Key Facts: B.COMPUTATION OF LIMITATION AS PER DECISION OF UOI VS. RAJEEV BANSALVS. RAJEEV BANSAL Sl. SC PARAS No. 1. Assessment Year 2014-2015 2. Period of limitation u/S 6 years 149[3 years or 6 years]3. Original Period of 31.03.2021 limitation u/S 1494. Extended period of 30.06.2021 Paras 65-69 limitation as per IT Act read with TOLA 5. Date of original notice u/S 29.06.2021 148-deemed SCN u/S 148A(b)6. Time surviving from the 1 days Paras 109-113 date issuance of deemed SCN till expiry of period as extended by TOLA [from 29.06.2021 till 30.06.2021]7. Extended to 7 days as per 7 days fourth proviso to Section 1498. Period of deemed stay to 29.06.2021 Paras 105-107 be excluded as per 3[rd]to proviso to Section 149 08.06.2022 [Date of Original 148 till date on which reply filed assessee]9. Period of deemed stay to 29.06.2021 be excluded as per 3[rd]to proviso to Section 149 10.06.2022 [Date of Original 148 till date the time allowed to reply]10. Last date for issuing 15.06.2022/ notice u/S 148 [i.e., 17.06.2022 08.06.2022+7 days] or[i.e., 10.06.2022+7 days] Sanction to be obtained from PCCIT 11. Actual date of issuance of 26.07.2022 notice u/S 148 12. Notice u/S 148 issued under new regime is barred by limitation 3.We note that insofar as the issue of surviving period is concerned, we had while disposing of a batch of writ petitions in Kanwaljeet Kaur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2025 SCC OnLine Del 605], framed the following directions:- “27. We accordingly dispose of this batch of writ petitions by directing the concerned AOs to evaluate the individual SCNs' under Section 148 of the Act bearing in mind our judgments in T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta. These decisions have conclusively settled issues pertaining to the accordal of sanction under Section 151 as well as the authority of the jurisdictional AO to commence and undertake reassessment. Those decisions also lay at rest the challenge which the writ petitioners had raised that an AO is bound to adhere to the procedure prescribed by Section 153C in cases emanating from a search. 28. A similar exercise would have to be undertaken to examine the issue of surviving period in respect of each individual noticee under Section 148 and which would necessarily be guided by the judgments of Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram. 29. The concerned AOs shall consequently pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the impact of the judgments referred to above upon the impugned reassessment notices and in the manner indicated in paras 27 and 28 of this order. That decision shall thus render a finding on whether the impugned reassessment notices would survive or be liable to be recalled. It shall be open to the writ petitioners to assail any adverse orders that may come to be passed pursuant to the above in accordance with law.” 4.Consequently and in light of the above, we dispose of the writ petition on terms identical to paragraphs 27 to 29 of Kanwaljeet Kaur. YASHWANT VARMA, J HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, JFEBRUARY 17, 2025/akc