Allowed

Ultimate Beauty N Fitness Private Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 27-1, Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC5 Aug 2024W.P.(C)/2909/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an impugned notice dated 01 August 2022 u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16. The court held the notice was ex facie barred due to the time window and lacked sufficient reasoning to satisfy the INR 50 lakh threshold condition under the Fourth Proviso to s. 153A.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the impugned notice u/s 153C dated 01 August 2022 was quashed insofar as it relates to AY 2015-16.

Ultimate Beauty N Fitness Private Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer… — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~33

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 2909/2024 & CM APPL. 11989/2024 (Stay) ULTIMATE BEAUTY N FITNESS PRIVATE LTD .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Tarun Chanana & Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advs

¶5

versus

¶6

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27(1), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr. Ashvini Kumar & Mr. Rishabh Nangia, Advs.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶8

O R D E R % 05.08.2024

¶9

The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned notice dated 01 August 2022 issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“ Act ”] for Assessment Year [“ AY’ ”] 2015-16 and all consequential proceedings.

¶10

Bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the notice under Section 153C is dated 01 August 2022, it is ex facie evident that the aforenoted AY would fall beyond the window of six preceding AYs’ as provided under Section 153C. It is manifest from an ex facie perusal of the Satisfaction Note recorded by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer [“ AO ”] dated 01 August 2022 that the income which is alleged to have escaped assessment for the “ relevant

¶11

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 09:58:06

¶12

assessment year ” does not exceed INR 50 lakhs. The jurisdictional AO has also failed to record its satisfaction that the escaped income for the “ relevant assessment year ”, and which would necessarily stretch to the block of 10 AYs’, is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs and thereby fulfilling the threshold requirement as prescribed by the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A.

¶13

We find that the aforesaid aspects were duly considered by us while rendering judgment in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central – 1 vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd [2024 SCC Online Del 2439]. We deem it apposite to extract the following paragraphs of the aforesaid decision hereinbelow:-

¶14

“ G. Insofar as the thresholds put in place by virtue of the Fourth Proviso to Section 153A are concerned and the argument of the writ petitioners of the condition of INR 50 lakhs being an unwavering precondition, we find ourselves unable to sustain that submission bearing in mind the indubitable fact that proceedings for search assessment commence upon the issuance of a notice and the AO at that stage having really not had the occasion to undertake a detailed or in depth examination of the evidence collected or come to a definitive opinion with respect to the total income which may have escaped assessment. Since the computation and assessment of income that is likely to have escaped assessment would at this stage be provisional, it would be incorrect to strike down initiation of action on a mere ex facie examination of the Satisfaction Note. We also in this regard bear in mind the Fourth Proviso using the expression “ amounts to or is likely to amount ”. The usage of the phrase “ likely to ” is indicative of the Legislature being conscious of the provisional character of the opinion that the AO may have formed at that stage.

¶15

H. However, and at the same time, even if the identified asset at that stage be quantified as less than INR 50 lakhs, the AO must for reasons to be duly recorded, be of the opinion that the ultimate computation of escaped income is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs. The aforesaid satisfaction would have to be based on an assessment of the material gathered and the potentiality of the same being indicative of the escaped assessment exceeding INR 50 lakhs. The formation of opinion in this respect would have to be based not on mere ipse dixit but reflective of a fair assessment of the quantum of income likely to have escaped assessment as distinct from mere

¶16

¶17

speculation and conjecture.

¶18

I. We further hold that since the precondition of INR 50 lakhs or more constitutes a sine qua non for initiating action for the extended ten year block, the aforesaid satisfaction and the reasons in support thereof would have to borne out from the Satisfaction Note itself. We are also of the opinion that the precondition of INR 50 lakhs is not liable to be viewed as being the qualifying criteria for each “ relevant assessment year ” that may be thrown open and that the said condition would stand satisfied if the escaped income cumulatively or in the aggregate meets the minimum benchmark of INR 50 lakhs.”

¶19

Accordingly, and for reasons assigned in our decision in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. , while we allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned notice issued under Section 153C of the Act dated 01 August 2022 insofar as it relates to AY 2015-16, we leave it open to the jurisdictional AO to examine the issue afresh bearing in mind the observations appearing in para 3 above.

¶20

In case the jurisdictional AO be of the opinion that the income alleged to have escaped assessment is likely to exceed INR 50 lakhs in the “ relevant assessment year ”, it would be open to it to draw proceedings afresh, if otherwise permissible in law.

¶21

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶22

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

¶23

AUGUST 5, 2024/ sk

¶24

Ultimate Beauty N Fitness Private Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 27-1, Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ultimate Beauty N Fitness Private Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 27-1, Delhi & 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

Fairfield Institute of Management and Technology Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Yogesh Sethi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others & Ors.

Adroit Financial Services Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1),DELHI & Ors.

Avni Nath Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 54(1), Delhi

Surinder Kumar Vs Tpddl and Anr.

Dr. Subhash Vijayran Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Guru Harkishan Public School & Anr. Vs Ravinder Singh Sachdev & Anr.

M/S Deutsche Lufthansa Ag Vs Mr. Nayan Pahwa & Ors.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 Vs Karina Airlines International Ltd.

Whirlpool of India Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Osd) Range - 10, New Delhi & Ors.

Commissioner of Income Tax International TAXATION-2, New Delhi Vs Ncr Global Solutions Limited.

Sunflower Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1) Delhi & Ors.

Ravi Sikka Memorial Foundation Vs Cbdt & Anr.

Gravity Bath Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr Additional Director General