The Petitioner Also Impugns The Notice Issued Under Section 148A(B) Ofthe Act, And The Order Passed Under Section 148A(D) Of The Act Prior To Theissuance Of The v. Incometax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2024:Dhc:5411-Db

$~39 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 9020/2024 & CM No.36954/2024 SERVICES EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL (SEPC).....Petitioner Through:Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Rohan Khare& Mr. Priyam Bhatnagar, Advs.& Mr. Priyam Bhatnagar, Advs.Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXEMPTION 21DELHI & ANR......RespondentsDELHI & ANR......Respondents Through:Mr. Siddharth Sinha, Ms. Dacchita Shahi, Ms. Anuja Pethia, JSCs, Mr.Nring Chamwibo Zeliang & Ms. AnuPriya Nisha Minz, AdvsNring Chamwibo Zeliang & Ms. AnuPriya Nisha Minz, Advs CORAM:HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELAO R D E R19.12.2024 % 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anotice dated 10.04.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for the assessment year(AY) 2017-18. 2.The petitioner also impugns the notice issued under Section 148A(b) ofthe Act, and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act prior to theissuance of the impugned notice. 3.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. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision ofthe Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal : 2024 SCCOnLine SC 2693 and drew the attention of this Court to the followingpassages from the said judgment: “46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down foranalysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the newregime can be issued at any time for an assessment yearbeginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at thetime when the notice is sought to be issued because of the“time limits specified under the provisions of” 149(1)(b) of theold regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and beforeonly if the time 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) requires thedetermination of whether the time limit prescribed underSection 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for theassessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a noticeunder Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if theperiod of six years from the end of the relevant assessmentyear has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This alsoensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed underSection 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. Forexample, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten yearperiod would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the sixyear period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso toSection 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could havehad the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 ifthe escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs ormore. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses.” 5.In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevantAY 2017-18 expired on 31.03.2023. The impugned notice has been issuedthereafter, and the same is thus barred by limitation. 6.The learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the aforesaid view. 7.In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside. 8.The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications alsostand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 19, 2024‘gsr’Click here to check corrigendum, if any