Allowed

Narendra Kumar Aggarwal v. Ito, Ward 43(6), Delhi

Delhi HC7 Nov 2024W.P.(C)/15491/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Section 148 reopening notice and related Section 148A proceedings for AY 2015-16. The court held the six-year limitation period expired on 31.03.2022, making the notice time-barred, and set it aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 set aside; petition allowed; pending applications disposed of.

Narendra Kumar Aggarwal Vs Ito, Ward 43(6), Delhi — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~77

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 15491/2024 & CM APPL. 65014-15/2024

¶4

NARENDRA KUMAR AGGARWAL

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr Venketesh Chaurasia, Ms Sakshi Rustagi, Ms Renu Arora and Ms Sakshi Srivastava, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

ITO, WARD 43(6), DELHI

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr Sunil Aggarwal, SSC, Mr Shivansh B Pandya, Mr Viplav Acharya, JSCs and Mr Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶10

O R D E R % 07.11.2024

¶11

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , impugning a notice dated 31.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice ) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act ) for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16.

¶12

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 to the issuance of the impugned notice.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 03/07/2025 at 20:48:11

¶16

issue 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.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 and drew the attention of this Court to the following passages from the said judgment:

¶18

“46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the “time limits specified under the provisions of” 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime.

¶19

*** *** *** 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section

¶20

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 03/07/2025 at 20:48:11

¶21

149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses.”

¶22

In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevant AY 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022. The impugned notice has been issued thereafter, and the same is thus barred by limitation.

¶23

The learned counsel for the respondent is unable to counter the said submissions.

¶24

In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside. 8. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶25

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶26

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶27

NOVEMBER 07, 2024 M

¶28

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶29

Narendra Kumar Aggarwal v. Ito, Ward 43(6), Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Aggarwal v. Ito, Ward 43(6), Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jai Shri Banke Bihari Traders Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr Robin Malik & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Sanjay Gambhir Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rachna Paul Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Jayaswal Necom Indsutries Ltd. & Anr. Vs UOI & Ors.

Kuldeep Kumar Singh Vs Apex Public School & Anr.

Manju Sharma Vs Apex Public School & Anr.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Raj Kumar Kanahi Nursery & Anr.

Phoenix Arc Private Limited Vs M/S Manasvi Security Services & Ors.

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 10 Vs Vinod Gugnani

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-2 Delhi Vs Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd.

Madhu Chhabra Vs Income Tax Officer & Anr.

Mci International Services Inc. Now Merged With Mci International Llc (Formerly Known as Mci Interna Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.

Mci International Llc (Formerly Known as Mci International, Inc) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.