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. Income Taxofficer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2024:Dhc:5411-Db

$~70 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 17383/2024 CM APPL. 74026/2024 CM APPL. 74027/2024TANAY GAUR....PetitionerTANAY GAUR....Petitioner Through:Mr. Nitin Gulati & Ms. Reena Gandhi,Advs.Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 50(1), DELHI & ANR ..Respondents Through:Mr.GauravGupta,Mr.ShivendraSingh & Mr. Yojit Pareek, Advs.Singh & Mr. Yojit Pareek, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R17.12.2024 % 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anotice dated 31.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for the assessment year(AY) 2016-17. 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. Income TaxOfficer 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 brokendown for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued at anytime for an assessment year beginning on or before1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when thenotice is sought to be issued because of the “timelimits specified under the provisions of” 149(1)(b)of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issuedunder Section 148 of the new regime for assessmentyear 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit forissuance of such notice continued to exist underSection 149(1)(b) of the old regime. ********* 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requiresthedeterminationofwhetherthetimelimitprescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regimecontinues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148of the new regime cannot be issued if the period ofsix years from the end of the relevant assessmentyear has expired at the time of issuance of thenotice. This also ensures that the new time limit often years prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of thenew regime applies prospectively. For example, forthe assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year periodwould have expired on 31 March 2023, while the sixyear period expired on 31 March 2019. Without theproviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, theRevenue could have had the power to reopenassessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escapedassessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more.The proviso limits the retrospective operation ofSection 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of theassesses.” 5.In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevantAY 2016-17 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 alsostands disposed of.stands disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ DECEMBER 17, 2024‘gsr’ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any