+ W.p.(C) v. Income Tax Officer Ward 16 3 Delhi & Ors

$~69 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 17530/2024 CM APPL. 74663/2024 CM APPL. 74664/2024MASON INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTDMASON INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD .....PetitionerThrough:Mr Ved Jain, Mr Nishay Kantoor, MsSoniaDodejaandMrDivyansh,Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16 3 DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through:Mr Shlok Chandra, SSC, Ms NaincyJain and Ms Madhavi Shukla, JSCsand Mr Sushant Pandey, Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELAO R D E R %19.12.2024 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) 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.IncomeTaxOfficerWard-70(1)&Ors:NeutralCitation:2024:DHC:5411-DB. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal : 2024SCC OnLine SC 2693 and drew the attention of this court to the followingpassages 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 beissued at any time for an assessment yearbeginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it isbarred at the time when the notice is sought to beissued because of the “time limits specified underthe provisions of” 149(1)(b) of the old regime.Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022and before only if the time limit for issuance ofsuch notice continued to exist under Section149(1)(b) of the old regime.********* 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requiresthe determination of whether the time limitprescribed 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 therelevant assessment year has expired at the timeof issuance of the notice. This also ensures thatthe new time limit of ten years prescribed underSection 149(1)(b) of the new regime appliesprospectively. For example, for the assessmentyear 2012-2013, the ten year period would haveexpired on 31 March 2023, while the six yearperiod expired on 31 March 2019. Without theproviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime,the Revenue could have had the power to reopenassessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escapedassessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs ormore.Theprovisolimitstheretrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect theinterests of the assesses.” 5.In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevantAY 2015-16 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 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, ACJ DECEMBER 19, 2024 M TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any