Allowed

Brilliant Metals Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Delhi HC13 Dec 2024W.P.(C)/17227/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a writ petition impugning notices issued under Sections 148 and 148A of the Income Tax Act. Held that the notice dated 31.08.2024 for AY 2017-18 was barred by limitation as the six-year period expired on 31.03.2024. Set aside the impugned notices.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 31.08.2024 set aside; the petition allowed; pending application disposed of.

Brilliant Metals Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~39

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 17227/2024

¶4

BRILLIANT METALS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Nitin Kanwar, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

¶8

& ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Jr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocates.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶11

% 13.12.2024

¶12

CM APPL. 73216/2024

¶13

Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

W.P.(C) 17227/2024 & CM APPL. 73215/2024

¶15

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) 2017-18.

¶16

The petitioner also impugns the notice dated 10.08.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, and the order dated 31.08.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act prior to the issuance of the impugned notice.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

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 19/12/2024 at 13:08:38

¶20

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.

¶21

Learned counsel, 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:

¶22

“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.

¶23

¶24

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 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 19/12/2024 at 13:08:38

¶27

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.”

¶28

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 issued thereafter, and the same is thus barred by limitation.

¶29

The learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the aforesaid view.

¶30

In view of the above, the impugned notice is set aside.

¶31

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.

¶32

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

¶33

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶34

DECEMBER 13, 2024/KG

¶35

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 19/12/2024 at 13:08:38

Brilliant Metals Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brilliant Metals Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

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

Brahampal Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

S a N Garments Manufacturing Private Limited Vs Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 7 and Anr. & Anr.

Rashmi Kumari Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Dharampal and Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Aadhar Infraholding Limited Vs Jitender Kumar & Ors.

Musetta Builders and Developers Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 17(1) & Anr.

Shishir Chandra Patel & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Ceragem India Private Limited Vs National Commission for Schedule Castes & Ors.

S a N Garments Manufacturing Private Limited Vs Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 7 and Anr. & Anr.

Commissioner of Income Tax Del Vs Jindal Photo Films Ltd.

Travelport International Operations Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle Int. Tax 3(1)(1), Delhi & Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs Ito, Ward - 61.1 & Anr.

Ms Nimbit Buildcon Private Limited Vs Malvika Kaura

M/S. Arham Iron Limited. Vs Income Tax Officer & Ors.