Allowed¶41

E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Income Tax – Reassessment – Limitation

Delhi HC7 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/12927/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 12927/2024, decided 07.01.2025 (Vibhu Bakhru, ACJ and Tushar Rao Gedela, J); E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax; Section 148 notice and Section 148A(d) order for AY 2016-17 set aside as barred by limitation under first proviso to Section 149(1); not a Section 153C case; proviso to Section 148A Clauses (a) and (c); SMC Group search 20.07.2022; accommodation entries; shell entities; six-year limitation; Manju Somani 2024:DHC:5411-DB referred.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 under Section 148A(d) and the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2016-17 are set aside. ¶41

E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 under Section 148A(d) and the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2016-17 are set aside.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2016-17, issued on 30.08.2024, is barred by limitation as it was issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The impugned notice, issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year (AY 2016-17), is barred by limitation in terms of the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 148A of the Act is inapplicable because the petitioner was not one of the entities searched.

¶36

Key takeaways

There is no material on record satisfying Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 148A (books, documents or assets belonging to or pertaining to the petitioner found in the SMC Group search); consequently, this is not a case where a notice under Section 153C could have been issued, and the question of limitation must be determined under the provisions in force prior to 01.04.2021.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income Tax - Reassessment - Limitation - Notice under Section 148 and order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.08.2024 for AY 2016-17, founded on a search conducted on 20.07.2022 in the SMC Group case - Petitioner was not itself searched; Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 148A held inapplicable - No material on record satisfying Clause (c) of the proviso (seized/requisitioned material pertaining to the petitioner); hence not a case for notice under Section 153C - Limitation required to be determined under the provisions in force prior to 01.04.2021 - Notice issued beyond six years from the end of AY 2016-17 held barred by the first proviso to Section 149(1) - Petition allowed; impugned order and notice set aside (petitioner had relied on Manju Somani v. ITO Ward-70(1), 2024:DHC:5411-DB).

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12927/2024

¶4

E-HOMES INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent

¶8

Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. VlK. Saksena and Ms. Hemlata Rawat, JSCs.

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 07.01.2025

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 30.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned order ) passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act ) as well as a notice dated 30.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice ) issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17.

¶13

It is the petitioner’s case that issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for the AY 2016-17 is beyond the period of limitation as more than six years have since elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by the decision of this court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB.

¶14

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 24/01/2025 at 15:17:48

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the time period for which a notice could be issued would require to be ascertained by reference to the provisions of Section 153C of the Act as the proceedings for reassessment have been initiated on the basis of information that was found during the course of search conducted on 20.07.2022 in the case of SMC Group and others.

¶16

She submitted that during the course of post search analysis, it was found that the group entities (SMC Group, Nirala Group and Neo Group) had taken accommodation entries from non-descript entities. These entitles are suspected to be shell entities, which were managed by entry operators, to provide accommodation entries. It is alleged that the petitioner had availed loan from one of these shell companies.

¶17

It is apposite to refer to Section 148A of the Act as was in force at the material time. The same is set out below: -

¶18

“148A. Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice under Section 148 .— The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under Section 148, —

¶19

(a) conduct any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority, with respect to the information which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment;

¶20

(b) provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by serving upon him a notice to show cause within such time, as may be specified in the notice, being not less than seven days and but not exceeding thirty days from the date on which such notice is issued, or such time, as may be extended by him on the basis of an application in this behalf, as to why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued on the basis of information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in his case for the relevant assessment year and results of enquiry conducted, if any, as per clause (a); (c) consider the reply of assessee furnished, if any, in response to the show-cause notice referred to in clause (b);

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 24/01/2025 at 15:17:48

¶23

(d) decide, on the basis of material available on record including reply of the assessee, whether or not it is a fit case to issue a notice under Section 148, by passing an order, with the prior approval of specified authority, within one month from the end of the month in which the reply referred to in clause (c) is received by him, or where no such reply is furnished, within one month from the end of the month in which time or extended time allowed to furnish a reply as per clause (b) expires:

¶24

Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply in a case where,—

¶25

(a) a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132A in the case of the assessee on or after the 1st day of April, 2021; or

¶26

(b) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized in a search under Section 132 or requisitioned under Section 132A, in the case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, belongs to the assessee; or

¶27

(c) the Assessing Officer is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner that any books of account or documents, seized in a search under Section 132 or requisitioned under Section 132A, in case of any other person on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, 2[relate to, the assessee; or

¶28

(d) *** *** ***

¶29

Explanation. — For the purposes of this section, specified authority means the specified authority referred to in Section 151. ”

¶30

It is clear from the proviso to Section 148A of the Act as in force at the material time that the provisions of the said Section would not be applicable in the cases of assessee, where a search was conducted under Section 132 of the Act or the books of account, other documents or assets of the assessee were requisitioned under Section 132A of the Act after

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

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 24/01/2025 at 15:17:48

¶33

01.04.2021.

¶34

In terms of Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 148A of the Act, Section 148 would be inapplicable in case where the Assessing Officer (AO) is satisfied, with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, that the books of account, assets or documents seized in a search under Section 132 or requisitioned under Section 132A of the Act belong to or contained information relating to the assessee.

¶35

The Revenue has not filed the counter affidavit despite sufficient opportunity.

¶36

Concededly, Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 148A of the Act is inapplicable as the petitioner was not one of the entities that was searched. There is also no material on record, which indicates that the condition as stipulated under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 148A of the Act is satisfied. Obviously, if the same was satisfied, the AO would not have taken recourse to Section 148A of the Act. Thus, this is not a case where a notice under Section 153C of the Act could have been issued as there appears no material to establish that the books of account, documents, other material or assets had been found, which either belonged to the petitioner or contained information pertaining to the petitioner, during the search conducted on the SMC Group. Thus, the question whether a notice could be issued under Section 148 of the Act, is required to be determined on the basis whether such notice could have been issued under the provisions as in force prior to 01.04.2021.

¶37

Since the impugned notice is issued beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year (AY 2016-17), we find merit in the contention that the said impugned notice is barred by limitation in terms

¶38

This is a digitally signed order.

¶39

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 24/01/2025 at 15:17:48

¶40

of the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act.

¶41

The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order and the impugned notice are set aside.

¶42

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

¶43

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶44

JANUARY 07, 2025 Aj/Yrj

¶45

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶46

E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E-Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priya Mishra and Ors. Vs Manish Kumar Upadhyay and Anr.

Jawahar Lal Vs National Commission for Protection of Child Rights & Ors.

Saket Parash Agarwal & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Smt Arun Prabha Dube Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Sh. Gurmit Singh Vs the Commissioner MCD of Delhi & Ors.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs Micro and Small Enterprise Facilitation Council and Others

Sharma Sales Corporation and Ors. Vs Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Dev. Corp. Ltd. (Dsiidc)

Harish Tiwari Vs Delhi Jal Board & Anr.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -1 Vs Cricket Australia

Nivedan Bharadwaj Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central CIRCLE-19, & Ors.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sahara India International

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Krbl Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Samtel India Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sahara India International Corporation Ltd.