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

$~38 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 11002/2024 & CM No.45404/2024AZAD.....PetitionerThrough:Mr. Amandeep Mehta, Mr. RiteshBajaj & Mr. Varun Nagrath, Advs.Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 43(1), DELHI & ANR......Respondents Through:Mr. Sunil Agarwal & Mr. Shivansh B.Pandya, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMAO R D E R %12.11.2024 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anotice dated 13.06.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for theassessment year (AY) 2015-16. 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 passages from the said judgment: “46. The ingredients of the proviso could bebroken down for analysis as follows: (i) no noticeunder Section 148 of the new regime can be issuedat any time for an assessment year beginning on orbefore 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the timewhen the notice is sought to be issued because ofthe “time limits specified under the provisions of”149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice couldbe issued under Section 148 of the new regime forassessment year 2021-2022 and before only if thetime 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) requiresthe determination ofwhetherthetimelimitprescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the oldregime continues to exist for the assessment year2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice underSection 148 of the new regime cannot be issued ifthe period of six years from the end of the relevantassessment year has expired at the time of issuanceof the notice. This also ensures that the new timelimitoftenyearsprescribedunderSection149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively.For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013,the ten year period would have expired on 31March 2023, while the six year period expired on31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue couldhave had the power to reopen assessments for theyear2012-2013iftheescapedassessmentamounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. TheprovisolimitstheretrospectiveoperationofSection 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of theassesses.” 5.In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevant AY 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2021. The impugned notice has been issuedthereafter, and the same is thus barred by limitation. 6.The learned counsel for the respondents concurs with the aforesaidview. 7.In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside. 8.The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applicationsalso stand disposed of.also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 12, 2024‘gsr’Click here to check corrigendum, if any