+ W.p.(C) 4195/2025, Cm Nos.19446/2025 v. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Delhi And Anr

$~1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 4195/2025, CM Nos.19446/2025 & 19447/2025GSM AUTO SPARES PRIVATE LIMITED.....PetitionerGSM AUTO SPARES PRIVATE LIMITED.....Petitioner .....Petitioner Through:Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Mr. SalilKapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr.Shivam Yadav, Mr. Utkarsh KumarGupta & Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advs.Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr.Shivam Yadav, Mr. Utkarsh KumarGupta & Mr. Tarun Chanana, Advs. Versus ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTDELHI AND ANR .....RespondentsThrough:Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Mr. ApoorvAgarwal, Mr. Parth Samwal, Ms.Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh,Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms.MuskaanGoel&Mr.HimanshuGaur, Advs.Agarwal, Mr. Parth Samwal, Ms.Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh,Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms.MuskaanGoel&Mr.HimanshuGaur, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R%28.04.2025 1.Issue notice. 2.The learned counsel for the Revenue accepts notice. 3.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning anorder dated 23.03.2025 [impugned order] passed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that it has been passed in violation of the judgmentsrendered by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rajeev Bansal:2024 INSC 754 and by this court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v.Income Tax Officer and Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:547-DB. 4.The petitioner had filed its return of income dated 30.09.2014 forAssessment Year 2014-15 declaring a total income of ₹64,77,780/-. This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2025 at 12:27:24 5.A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] wasissuedbytheAOon30.06.2021seekingtoinitiatereassessmentproceedings in respect of AY 2014-15. The said notice was issued under theprovisions relating to reassessment, as were in force prior to 31.03.2021.Similar notices were set aside by this court in terms of its decision dated15.12.2021 in Mon Mohan Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax & Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2021:DHC:4181-DB.However,subsequently in an appeal preferred against the decision rendered by theAllahabad High Court taking a similar view, the Supreme Court in Union ofIndia & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal: (2023) 1 SCC 617 issued certaindirections under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court directedthat that the notices issued after 01.04.2021 till the date of the said decision(i.e. 04.05.2022), under the unamended provisions of Sections 147-151 ofthe Act and without following the procedure prescribed under Section 148Aof the Act, would be construed as notices issued under Section 148A(b) ofthe Act. The AOs were also directed to provide the information and materialto the assessees on the basis of which the said notices were premised, withina period of thirty days. 6.In the present case, the AO issued the notice dated 15.05.2022 underSection 148A(b) of the Act for complying with the said direction andpetitioner responded to the same by communications dated 01.06.2022 and21.06.2022. 7.The AO passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act on22.07.2022 and issued a notice dated 23.07.2022 under Section 148 of theAct. 8.Concededly, the said notice is beyond the period of limitation as held This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2025 at 12:27:24 by this court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officerand Anr. (supra). 6.In the present case, the AO issued the notice dated 15.05.2022 underSection 148A(b) of the Act for complying with the said direction andpetitioner responded to the same by communications dated 01.06.2022 and21.06.2022. 7.The AO passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act on22.07.2022 and issued a notice dated 23.07.2022 under Section 148 of theAct. 8.Concededly, the said notice is beyond the period of limitation as held This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2025 at 12:27:24 by this court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officerand Anr. (supra). 9.The petitioner also challenged the said notice by filing a writ petitionbeing W.P.(C) No.5869/2023 on several grounds, including that the noticewas barred by limitation. The said petition along with a batch of petitionswas disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this court on 04.02.2025[Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (34) 1Delhi & Ors. & other connected matters: Neutral Citation No.:2025:DHC:656-DB] by directing the AO to examine various groundsincluding the ground that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act,which were impugned in those petitions, in the light of various decisions thatwere rendered by this court on various grounds of challenge. The relevantextract of the said decision is set out below: “26.Having identified the broad principles which would nowgovern the question of surviving time, we are of the consideredopinion that rather than this Court undertaking the gargantuanexercise of examining individual facts, it would appear to beexpedient to frame directions requiring the AOs to frame an orderwith respect to the individual reassessment notices in light of thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal and of this Courtin Ram Balram, T.K.S Builders, Abhinav Jindal and Naveen KumarGupta. 27.We accordingly dispose of this batch of writ petitions bydirecting the concerned AOs to evaluate the individual SCNs’under Section 148 of the Act bearing in mind our judgments inT.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta. Thesedecisions have conclusively settled issues pertaining to the accordalof sanction under Section 151 as well as the authority of thejurisdictional AO to commence and undertake reassessment. Thosedecisions also lay at rest the challenge which the writ petitionershad raised that an AO is bound to adhere to the procedureprescribed by Section 153C in cases emanating from a search. 28.A similar exercise would have to be undertaken to examine This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2025 at 12:27:24 the issue of surviving period in respect of each individual noticeeunder Section 148 and which would necessarily be guided by thejudgments of Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram. 29.The concerned AOs shall consequently pass a reasoned andspeaking order dealing with the impact of the judgments referred toabove upon the impugned reassessment notices and in the mannerindicated in paras 27 and 28 of this order. That decision shall thusrender a finding on whether the impugned reassessment noticeswould survive or be liable to be recalled. It shall be open to the writpetitioners to assail any adverse orders that may come to be passedpursuant to the above in accordance with law. 30.In order to facilitate the aforesaid exercise, we accord libertyto the writ petitioners to file written submissions before theirrespective AOs within a period of three weeks from today andwhich shall be duly taken into consideration before passing ordersin terms of our aforenoted directions. ********* 29.The concerned AOs shall consequently pass a reasoned andspeaking order dealing with the impact of the judgments referred toabove upon the impugned reassessment notices and in the mannerindicated in paras 27 and 28 of this order. That decision shall thusrender a finding on whether the impugned reassessment noticeswould survive or be liable to be recalled. It shall be open to the writpetitioners to assail any adverse orders that may come to be passedpursuant to the above in accordance with law. 30.In order to facilitate the aforesaid exercise, we accord libertyto the writ petitioners to file written submissions before theirrespective AOs within a period of three weeks from today andwhich shall be duly taken into consideration before passing ordersin terms of our aforenoted directions. ********* 32.We further observe that many of the writ petitioners haveraised various factual and additional contentions in support of thechallenge to the reassessment action. However, we have heardrespective sides solely in respect of the issues that we had flaggedin our order of 05 August 2024.” 10.Concededly, the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of this court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Anr. (supra). Notwithstanding the same, the AOhas proceeded to pass an order in complete disregard of the expressdirections of this court. 11.In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugnedorder dated 23.03.2025 is set aside. 12.It does appear, prima facie, that the AO has wilfully disobeyed thedirections issued by this court. However, since the learned counselappearing for the Revenue tenders an unqualified apology on behalf of theconcerned AO, we refrain from initiating any proceedings in his regard. This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2025 at 12:27:24 13.The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pendingapplications are also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 28, 2025‘gsr’ TEJAS KARIA, J Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order.The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2025 at 12:27:24