S.k.industries v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr
High Court
05 May 2015 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
S.k.industries v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr
Date of order
05 May 2015
Assessment year(s)
2012-13
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In S.k.industries v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr, the High Court (2015) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Thewrit petition stands allowed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
$~7
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 664/2015 and CM No. 1154/2015
S.K.INDUSTRIES..... PetitionerThrough:Mr Mukesh Gupta and Mr Keshav Raiversus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR...... RespondentsThrough:Mr Kamal Sawhney and Mr Shikhar Garg
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMEDHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
O R D E R%05.05.2015
This writ petition is directed against the two notices dated 06.08.2013 and23.12.2014 issued under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referredto as the said Act). This petition relates to the assessment year 2012-13. The end of thefinancial year in which the return is filed for the relevant assessment year would be31.03.2013. Consequently, the notice under Section 143(2) of the said Act could havebeen issued within six months of 31.03.2013 implying thereby that the notices could havebeen issued on or before 30.09.2013.
While the notice dated 06.08.2013 was issued within time, it was issued by ACIT,Circle 31(1), who admittedly did not have jurisdiction in this matter. Therefore, the saidnotice dated 06.08.2013 is to be rejected on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Insofar asthe notice dated 23.12.2014 is concerned, it was issued by the officer having jurisdictionnamely, the ACIT, Circle 50(1) but that has been issued much beyond the period of
limitation which expired on 30.09.2013. Therefore, the notice dated 23.12.2014 is barredby time.
As such both the notices are liable to be quashed. It is ordered accordingly. Thewrit petition stands allowed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
MAY 05, 2015SU
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.
EaseValue