Allowed¶25

M D Overseas Private Limited through Managing Director Mr Satish Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 14 & Ors.

Direct tax – Reopening of assessment

Delhi HC16 Jan 2025W.P.(C)/13162/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 13162/2024 & CM APPL. 54980/2024, decided 16.01.2025 by Vibhu Bakhru, ACJ and Tushar Rao Gedela, J. M D Overseas Private Limited challenged a Section 148 notice dated 30.08.2024 for AY 2016-17 (with Section 148A(b) notice and Section 148A(d) order). Held: six-year limitation period expired 31.03.2023; notice barred by limitation per Section 149(1)(b) proviso principles in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 and Manju Somani, 2024:DHC:5411-DB; notice set aside; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2016-17 set aside; pending application also disposed of. ¶25

M D Overseas Private Limited through Managing Director Mr Satish… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~61

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 13162/2024 & CM APPL. 54980/2024

¶4

M D OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH

¶5

MANAGING DIRECTOR MR SATISH BANSAL .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Nishay Kantoor, Ms. Sonia Dodeja, Divyansh Dubey and Govind Gupta, Advocates

¶7

versus

¶8

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 14 & ORS .....Respondents

¶9

Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC with Ms. Monica Benjamin and Ms. Easha Kadian, JSCs

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R % 16.01.2025

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , impugning a notice dated 30.08.2024 (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

¶15

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 16:28:18

¶16

Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB.

¶17

The 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:

¶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

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 assesses.”

¶20

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.

¶21

The learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the aforesaid

¶22

¶23

view.

¶24

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

¶25

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application

¶26

also stands disposed of.

¶27

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

¶28

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶29

JANUARY 16, 2025 Aj

¶30

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶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 16:28:18

M D Overseas Private Limited through Managing Director Mr Satish Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 14 & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M D Overseas Private Limited through Managing Director Mr Satish Bansal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 14 & Ors.

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

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.

Seema Jamwal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kunte and Drabu Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 14(3) & Ors.

Elitecast Media Private Limited Vs Idbi Trusteeship Services Ltd.

Grid Solutions Oy (Ltd) Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 1(3)(1) & Anr.

Abhinav Jindal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 52 1

Media Council of India Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Ravinder Vs Union of India

Haryana Carbons Privated Limited Vs Income Tax Officer & Anr.

Sunshine Capital Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, WARD-24(1), Delhi & Ors.

Priya Janki Podar Vs Vinod Kumar Poddar and Ors.