+ W.p.(C) v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 15

$~82 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 15081/2024 & CM APPL. 63181-82/2024JINDAL PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITEDJINDAL PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through:Ms Ananya Kapoor, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 .....Respondent Through:Mr Vipul Aggarwal, SSC, Mr GirbanNaushad and Ms Sakshi Shairwal,JSCs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 25.10.2024 1.Issue notice. The learned counsel for the Revenue accepts notice. 2.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning thenotice dated 06.10.2023 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) for reopeningthe assessment in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2013-14. 3.It is the petitioner’s claim that impugned notice is beyond the periodof the limitation as prescribed under Section 149(1) of the Act. 4.The impugned notice indicates that a search under Section 132 of theAct was conducted on Gaur group and its directors on 02.03.2022.It isalleged that during the search operation incriminating material was found,including material relating to the petitioner / assessee. The impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued pursuant to the saidinformation. 5.The question whether the said notice is barred by the limitation isconcededly covered by the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this CourtinDinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CentralCircle 20, Delhi & Others[1]as well as in The Pr. Commissioner of IncomeTax -Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd[2]. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also referred tothe said decisions and contended that the period of ten years for reopeningthe reassessment is to be reckoned from the end of the assessment yearrelevant to the year in which the notice is issued. 7.In the present case, the impugned notice was issued during thefinancial year (FY) 2023-24 therefore, the period of ten years, in terms ofthe decisions in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others (supra) as well as in The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.(supra), is required to be reckoned from the end of the AY relevant to theFY 2023-24. 8.The petitioner has furnished a tabular statement to indicate that theimpugned notice is barred by limitation. The said tabular statement isreproduced below: - “Analysis of time-period to issue reassessment noticeDate of recording of satisfaction note – 26.09.2023Date of Section 148 notice- 06.10.2023This chart is prepared in light of the first proviso to 1 2024: DHC:4554-DB2 2024:DHC:2629-DB2 2024:DHC:2629-DB Section 149 of the Act as amended by Finance Act2021RelevantComputation ofWithoutAssessment06 yearsprejudiceyear forcomputation ofinitiating10 yearsproceedingsunder Section153C of the Act2024-25--12023-24--22022-23132021-22242020-21352019-20462018-19572017-18682016-17--92015-16--10Barred by the limitation2014-15--11(beyondterminal point of10 years)2013-14--12(beyondterminal point of10 years)” 9.The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue does not dispute thatthe aforesaid issues are covered in favour of the assessee in view of theearlier decisions of this Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others (supra) as well as in ThePr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.(supra). He, however, contends that the Revenue has not accepted the said decisions and intends to avail its remedies in respect of the said decisions.10.Be that as it may, undisputedly by the decisions in Dinesh Jindal v.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others(supra) and The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-1 v. OjjusMedicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are binding on this Bench. 9.The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue does not dispute thatthe aforesaid issues are covered in favour of the assessee in view of theearlier decisions of this Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others (supra) as well as in ThePr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.(supra). He, however, contends that the Revenue has not accepted the said decisions and intends to avail its remedies in respect of the said decisions.10.Be that as it may, undisputedly by the decisions in Dinesh Jindal v.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others(supra) and The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central-1 v. OjjusMedicare Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are binding on this Bench. 11.In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned notice isset aside. The petitioner has also raised other contentions in the presentpetition. We clarify that we have not examined any of such contentions ontheir merits and the impugned notice has been set aside only on the groundthat it is barred by limitation. 12.The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pendingapplications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 25, 2024 M SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any