+ W.p.(C) v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 16 1 & Anr

$~2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 15969/2024 and CM APPLs. 67104-05/2024MINOSHA INDIA LIMITED.....PetitionerMINOSHA INDIA LIMITED.....Petitioner .....Petitioner Through:Mr Ashish Mehta with Mr Bharat Jainand Ms Aanchal Jain, Advocates.and Ms Aanchal Jain, Advocates. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16 1 &ANR......Respondents .....Respondents Through:Mr Shlok Chandra, SSC with MsNaincy Jain and Ms Madhavi Shukla,Advocates for revenue.Mr Vivek Sharma with Ms PrernaaSingh, Advocates for respondent no.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 25.11.2024 1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anotice dated 31.08.2024 (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. IncomeTaxOfficerWard-70(1)&Ors:NeutralCitation:2024:DHC:5411-DB. 4.Mr Mehta, also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693and drew the attention of this Court to the following passages from the saidjudgment: “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 year beginningon or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when thenotice is sought to be issued because of the “time limits specifiedunder the provisions of” 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a noticecould be issued under Section 148 of the new regime for assessmentyear 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance ofsuch notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the oldregime. ********* 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determinationof whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of theold regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the newregime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end ofthe relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance ofthe notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten yearsprescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime appliesprospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, theten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while thesix year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso toSection 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have hadthe power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if theescaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. Theproviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) toprotect the interests of the assesses.” 5.In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevant AY 2017-18 expired on 31.03.2024. 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. VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 25, 2024 /tr SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any