Surender Kumar Wadhwa v. Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax-18 & Anr

$~102 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 23.09.2025 +W.P.(C) 13880/2024 & CM APPL. 58088/2024(Stay) SURENDER KUMAR WADHWA .....PetitionerThrough:Ms Kavita Jha, Sr Advocate with MsAabgina Chishti and Mr Ujwal Ghai,Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-18 & ANR. .....RespondentsThrough:Mr.DebeshPanda,SSCMr.Vikramaditya Singh, Ms. Zehra Khan,JSCs Ms. Yashika Gupta, Advocatefor the Revenue. MrAjitSharma,Advocateforapplicant in CM No.60079/2025. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAOHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.(ORAL) 1.This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “(a) Allow the present petition and issue a writ ofcertiorari or any other appropriate writ, order ordirection to quash and set-aside notice dated26.03.2024 under Section 148A (b) followed bysubsequentapprovaldated09.04.2024under Section 151 order dated 09.04.2024 under Section148A (d) and notice dated 09.04.2024 underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued bythe Respondents to the Petitioner Sh. SurenderKumar Wadhwa; AND” 2.Ms Kavita Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitionerfairly states that the two issues which have been raised by the petitioner inthis petition, that is, with regard to the issue of competency of JurisdictionalAssessing Officer (JAO) or the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and alsothat the order which has been passed under Section 148A(d) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (the Act) is beyond the period of limitation are coveredagainst the petitioner.She fairly states that as far as the first issue isconcerned, the same is covered against the petitioner by the judgment of thisCourt in the case of T.K.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward25 (3) New Delhi : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:8330-DB whereby thisCourt has held that both the authorities, viz, JAO and FAO have concurrentjurisdiction to initiate the action for reassessment. 3.In so far as the second plea is concerned, she also states that the issueis covered against the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in RaminderSingh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax : W.P.(C) No.8288/2023decided on 07.08.2023 wherein this Court has held as under:- “10. The notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on31.03.2023, and provided the assessee an opportunityto respond to the same on or before 10.04.2023; thus,the period between 31.03.2023 and 10.04.2023 isrequired to be excluded by virtue of the fifth proviso toSection 149(1) of the Act. Since, the period oflimitation remaining thereafter is less than 07 days, byvirtue of the sixth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, the period gets extended by 07 days. The impugnednotice has been issued on the last date of the limitationperiod and, therefore, the contention that it is beyondthe period of limitation is erroneous. 11. Thus, the reopening of the assessment for thePrevious Year relevant to the Assessment Year 2019-20cannot be set aside. The AO shall, in the reassessmentproceedings, duly consider the petitioner’s contentionthat the expenditure in respect of Angel Enterpriseswas not booked in the Previous Year relevant to theAssessment Year 2018-2019 and, therefore, cannot bethesubjectmatterofreassessmentrelevanttoAssessment Year 2019-2020. Needless to state that theAO shall also consider the petitioner’s contention onmerits regarding the transactions entered into withMilap Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd.” 4.It is noted that the review of the order dated 07.08.2023 was sought,which resulted in the order dated 05.09.2023. This Court in the review orderdated 05.09.2023 in paragraphs 9 to 11 has stated as under:- 11. Thus, the reopening of the assessment for thePrevious Year relevant to the Assessment Year 2019-20cannot be set aside. The AO shall, in the reassessmentproceedings, duly consider the petitioner’s contentionthat the expenditure in respect of Angel Enterpriseswas not booked in the Previous Year relevant to theAssessment Year 2018-2019 and, therefore, cannot bethesubjectmatterofreassessmentrelevanttoAssessment Year 2019-2020. Needless to state that theAO shall also consider the petitioner’s contention onmerits regarding the transactions entered into withMilap Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd.” 4.It is noted that the review of the order dated 07.08.2023 was sought,which resulted in the order dated 05.09.2023. This Court in the review orderdated 05.09.2023 in paragraphs 9 to 11 has stated as under:- “9. This court had accepted the contention that byvirtue of the fifth and sixth proviso to section 149(1) ofthe Act, the period provided to the assessee to respondto the notice under clause (b) of section 148A of theAct is required to be excluded. Further, if the period oflimitation remaining after such exclusion, is less than 7days, then by virtue of the sixth proviso of section149(1), the period of limitation is extended by a periodof 7 days. 10. The impugned notice under Section 148A(b) of theAct was issued on 31.03.2023, and provided thepetitioner an opportunity to respond to the same on orbefore10.04.2023.Thus,theperiodbetween31.03.2023 and 10.04.2023 is required to be excludedby virtue of the fifth proviso to Section 149(1) of theAct.Since,theperiodoflimitationremainingthereafter is less than 7 days, by virtue of the sixth proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, the period getsextended by 7 days. 11. In view of the above, this court held that theimpugned notice was issued on the last date of thelimitation period – 17.04.2023 – and the petitioner’scontention that the same was issued beyond the periodof limitation was erroneous.” 5.Ms Jha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that in facts ofthis case, wherein notice under Section 148A(b) dated 26.03.2024 by whichtime was granted till 04.04.2024 to file a reply to the same, which is eightdays, the same is in compliance of the order under Section 148A(b) of theAct. The reply was filed by the petitioner on 03.04.2024, that is, one daybefore 04.04.2024 and the order having been passed on 09.04.2024, that is,much before the seven days’ had expired on 10.04.2024 or 11.04.2024 (asthe case may be) the same was within limitation. She states that plea of thepetitioner shall be unmerited. 6.We have been informed that a Special Leave Petition (Civil) withDiary No.48769/2023, is pending consideration before the Supreme Courtagainst the order dated 07.08.2023 in Raminder Singh (supra), but no stayhas been granted by the Supreme Court. 7.If that be so, we are of the view that both the pleas advanced by MsJha, are unmerited. We dismiss this petition. The pending application is alsodisposed of having become infructuous. CM APPL. 60079/2025(impleadment) 8.Mr Ajit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant states that in view of the dismissal of the writ petition itself, he shall withdraw this applicationto enable the applicant seek such remedy, as available in law. 9.Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2025M