Jayanti Real Estate Developers Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 13(3) New Delhi & Anr.

$~53

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 138/2023

JAYANTI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni and Mr. Himanshu Aggarwal, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(3) NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr. Parth Semwal, JSC, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC and Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Ms. Muskaan Goel and Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Advs. for Revenue.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SH ANKAR

¶9

O R D E R % 04.03.2025

¶10

The instant writ petition had been preferred assailing the reassessment action initiated by the respondent pertaining to Assessment Year [8 AY 9] 2014-15. We take note of the principal challenge which now remains and pertains to the issue of surviving period.

¶11

The petitioner, in order to buttress its claim of the proceedings being time barred, has placed for our consideration the following chart:

¶12

W.P.(C) 138/2023 Page 1 of 4

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 01/07/2025 at 18:32:11

¶15

“SUMMARY CHART

¶16

A. Key Facts:

¶17

Sl.	PARTICULARS	DATE	Relevant
No.		P o P	g./Ann f HC etition	No. Writ
1.	Notice issued Section 148 (oldregime)	29.06.2021	Pg. 15 o	f WP
2.	Letter communicating information pursuant to SC decision in Ashish Agarwal– reply to be filed by 02.06.2022 & Letter dated 10.06.2022–Reply to be filed by17.06.2022.	17.05.2022 & 10.06.2022	83-113 & 129/9	/9D9 G9
3.	Replyfiled byPetitioner	17.06.2022	130-141	/9H9
4.	Order u/s 148A(d)	28.07.2022	64-68/	8A9
5.	Notice issued u/s 148	28.07.2022	69-71/	8B9
CO UOI S. No.	MPUTATION OF LIMITAT VS. RAJEEV BANSAL	ION AS PER	DECISI SC Pa	ON O ras
1.	Assessment Year	2014-15
2.	Period of limitation u/s 149 years or 6years]	[3 6 years
3.	Original Period of limitation 149	u/s 31.03.2021
4.	Extended period of limitat asper IT Act read with TOL	ion A 30.06.2021	Paras	65-69
5.	Date of original notice u/s 1 deemed SCN u/s 148A(b)	48- 29.06.2021
6.	Time surviving from date issuance of deemed SCN expiry of period as extended TOLA [from 29.06.2021 30.06.2021]	of till by till 1 days	Para 113	109-
7.	Extended to 7 days as proviso to section 149	per 7 days
8.	Period of deemed stay to excluded as per 3^rdproviso section 149 [Date of Origi 148 till date allowed to replyto assessee]	be to nal file 29.06.2021 to 17.06.2021	Para 10	105- 7

¶18

B. COMPUTATION OF LIMITATION AS PER DECISION OF UOI VS. RAJEEV BANSAL

¶19

W.P.(C) 138/2023 Page 2 of 4

¶20

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 01/07/2025 at 18:32:11

¶21

9.	Last date for issuing notice u/s	24.06.2022	Para 77
	148[i.e.,17.06.2022 + 7 days]
10.	Actual date of issuance of notice u/s 148	28.07.2022
11.	*Notice u/s 148 issued under new* *outside limitation*	*regime was*	Page 77

¶22

The said question would have to be necessarily examined by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer bearing in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693] as well as of this Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr. [2025 SCC OnLine Del 481].

¶23

Dealing with identical issues, we had disposed of a batch of writ petitions by our judgment rendered in Kanwaljeet Kaur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2025 SCC OnLine Del 605] in the following terms:

¶24

“27. We accordingly dispose of this batch of writ petitions by directing the concerned AOs to evaluate the individual SCNs' under Section 148 of the Act bearing in mind our judgments in T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta . These decisions have conclusively settled issues pertaining to the accordal of sanction under Section 151 as well as the authority of the jurisdictional AO to commence and undertake reassessment. Those decisions also lay at rest the challenge which the writ petitioners had raised that an AO is bound to adhere to the procedure prescribed by Section 153C in cases emanating from a search.

¶25

28. A similar exercise would have to be undertaken to examine the issue of surviving period in respect of each individual noticee under Section 148 and which would necessarily be guided by the judgments of Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram .

¶26

29. The concerned AOs shall consequently pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the impact of the judgments referred to above upon the impugned reassessment notices and in the manner indicated in paras 27 and 28 of this order. That decision shall thus render a finding on whether the impugned reassessment notices would survive or be liable to be recalled. It shall be open to the writ

¶27

W.P.(C) 138/2023 Page 3 of 4

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 01/07/2025 at 18:32:11

¶30

petitioners to assail any adverse orders that may come to be passed pursuant to the above in accordance with law.=

¶31

Consequently, and in light of the above, we dispose of the writ petition on terms identical to those provided in paragraphs 27 to 29 of Kanwaljeet Kaur .

¶32

YASHWANT VARMA, J

¶33

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J

¶34

MARCH 4, 2025/ akc

¶35

W.P.(C) 138/2023 Page 4 of 4

¶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 01/07/2025 at 18:32:11

Jayanti Real Estate Developers Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(3) New Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanti Real Estate Developers Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(3) New Delhi & Anr.

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 Ksheerabad Construction Pvt. Ltd.-I. Vetrivel-Om Sakthi Construction (Jv) Vs National Highways Authority of India

Sushil Kumar Jain@ S. K. Jain, Vs Punjab National Bank, and Anr.

Ilc Infracon Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 12 1, Delhi

South West Pinnacle Exploration Pvt. Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-8, New Delhi & Anr.

Amar Singh Vs Delhi Transport Corporation

Kusum Healthcare Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(1), New Delhi & Ors.

Aarone Developers Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1) New Delhi & Ors.

Dr. Jatinder Bali Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Gauri Aggarwal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 49(1), Delhi

Meenu Goyal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3)

Rajesh Gupta HUF Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Pacific International (through Proprietor Rahul Nakra) Vs Ds Goods and Services Tax (Ward 64) & Anr.

Jayanti Real Estate Developers Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 13(3) New Delhi & Anr.

Jayanti Real Estate Developers Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 13(3) New Delhi & Anr.