Allowed

Bptp Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax CENTRAL-2,NEW Delh & Anr.

Delhi HC14 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/13068/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged reassessment notice for AY 2016-17 issued after the six-year limitation period had expired on 31.03.2023. Relying on prior Delhi High Court and Supreme Court decisions, the court held the notice barred by limitation and set it aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Section 148 notice set aside; petition allowed; pending application disposed of.

Bptp Limited Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax CENTRAL-2,NEW Delh… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~39

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 13068/2024 & CM APPL. 54530/2024

¶4

BPTP LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Piyush and Mr. Tanveer Zaki, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2,NEW DELH & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC and Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

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

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 14.01.2025

¶12

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) 2016-17.

¶13

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.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 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.

¶15

The learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Supreme

¶16

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 15:47:00

¶17

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

¶20

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 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

¶21

¶22

assesses.”

¶23

In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevant (AY) 2016-17 expired on 31.03.2023. The impugned notice has been issued thereafter, and the same is thus barred by limitation.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

¶28

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶29

JANUARY 14, 2025

¶30

¶31

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 15:47:00

Bptp Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax CENTRAL-2,NEW Delh & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bptp Limited v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax CENTRAL-2,NEW Delh & 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

Sudesh Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, DELHI-15 and Anr.

Nafis-Ul-Afiin Vs Union of India and Anr.

Kirpal Singh Vs Superintendent Range 118 Central Goods and Service Tax & Anr.

Mrs. Manju Jain Vs Managing Committee of Dayanand Model Secondary School and Anr.

M/S S.H. Enterprises Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax East Delhi

Prashant Reddy T. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Mandeep Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Hawkers Surksha Foundation Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shabana Khatun Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Gala International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Kamlesh Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi & Anr.

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -1 Vs Luxor Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Vf Worldwide Holdings Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.