Singh<Br>And<Br>Mr<Br>Namangupta v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central02,Delhi & Anr

$~7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-02,DELHI & ANR......RespondentsThrough:Mr Siddhartha Sinha, Sr. StandingCounsel. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R%04.11.2024 1.Issue notice. 2.Learned counsel appearing for the respondents accepts notice. 3.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anorder dated 01.05.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) issued under Section148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for the assessmentyear (AY) 2017-18 as well as the notice dated 01.05.2024 issued underSection 148 of the Act. 4.The petitioner contends that the said notice was issued beyond theperiod of limitation as prescribed in first proviso to Section 149(1) of theAct. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issuestands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v. IncomeTax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB. 6.It is also relevant to note that the Supreme Court in a recent decisionof Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693has observed as under: “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 could have had the power to reopen assessments for theyear2012-2013iftheescapedassessmentamounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. TheprovisolimitstheretrospectiveoperationofSection 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of theassesses.” 7.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugnedorder dated 01.05.2024 as well as the notice issued under Section 148 inrespect of the AY 2017-18 are set aside.8.Pending applications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, JNOVEMBER 4, 2024 /trClick here to check corrigendum, if any