The Petitioner Also Impugns The Notice Issued Under Section 148A(B)Of The Act, And The Order Passed Under Section 148A(D) Of The Act Prior Tothe Issuance Of The v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024Scc Online Sc 2693 And Drew The Attention Of This Court To The Following

$~60 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 13741/2024 and CM APPL. 57539/2024 WAVE SILVER TOWER PRIVATE LIMITED.....PetitionerThrough:Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate.versus ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, DELHI .....Respondent Through:Mr Siddharth Sinha, SSC with MsDacchita Shahi, Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMAO R D E R %16.10.2024 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anotice dated 30.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for theassessment year (AY) 2016-17. 2.The petitioner also impugns the notice issued under Section 148A(b)of the Act, and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act prior tothe issuance of the impugned notice. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that theissue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v.Income Tax 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: 2024SCC OnLine SC 2693 and drew the attention of this Court to the following passage from the said judgment: “46. The ingredients of the proviso could be brokendown for analysis as follows: (i) no notice underSection 148 of the new regime can be issued at anytime for an assessment year beginning on or before 1April 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) ofthe old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued underSection 148 of the new regime for assessment year2021-2022 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) requires thedetermination of whether the time limit prescribedunder Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues toexist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before.Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the newregime cannot be issued if the period of six years fromthe end of the relevant assessment year has expired atthe time of issuance of the notice. This also ensuresthat the new time limit of ten years prescribed underSection149(1)(b)ofthenewregimeappliesprospectively. For example, for the assessment year2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could havehad the power to reopen assessments for the year2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted toRupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits theretrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protectthe interests of the assesses.” 5.In the present case, the period of six years for the relevant AY 2016-17, thus, expired on 31.03.2022. The impugned notice has been issuedthereafter, and the same is, thus, barred by limitation. 6.The learned counsel for the respondent is unable to counter the said submissions. 7.In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside. 8.The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applicationalso stands disposed of.also stands disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 16, 2024RK SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any