Nimit Builders Private Limited (as Successor in the Interest of Jk Jeet Clothes Private Limited and Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

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

¶16

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

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 18:20:51

¶19

SUMMARY CHART

¶20

C. Key Facts:

¶21

S. No	PARTICULARS	DATE	Relevant Pg./ Ann No. of Writ Petition
1.	Notice issued under section 148 (old regime)	26.06.2021	13
2.	Letter communicating information pursuant to SC decision in Ashish Agarwal – replyto be filed by10.06.2022	18.05.2022 08.06.2022	85-92/ ‘A’
3.	Replyfiled byPetitioner	09.06.2022	209-331/ ‘G’
4.	Order u/s 148A(d)	28.07.2022	93-115/ ‘B’
5.	Notice issued u/s 148 – Sanction obtained from PCCIT	27.07.2022	116-118/ ‘C’

¶22

D. COMPUTATION OF LIMITATION AS PER DECISION OF UOI VS. RAJEEV BANSAL:

¶23

S. No.			SC Paras
13.	Assessment Year	2014-15
14.	Period of limitation u/s 149 [3 years or 6 years]	6 years
15.	Original Period of limitation u/s 149	31.03.2021
16.	Extended period of limitation as per IT Act read with TOLA	30.06.2021	Paras 65-69
17.	Sanction to be obtained u/s 151 till 30.06.2021[within 3years]	PCCIT
18.	Date of original notice u/s 148 - deemed SCN u/s 148A(b)	26.06.2021
19.	Time surviving from date of issuance of deemed SCN till expiry of period as extended by TOLA [from 26.06.2021 till 30.06.2021]	4 days	Paras 109-113
20.	Extended to 7 days as per proviso to section 149	7 days
21.	Period of deemed stay to be excluded as per 3^rdproviso to section 149 [Date of Original 148 till date allowed to file reply to assessee]	26.06.2021 to 10.06.2022	Paras 105-107
22.	Last date for issuing notice u/s 148 [i.e., 10.06.2022 + 7 days]	17.06.2022	Para 77
23.	Actual date of issuance of notice u/s 148	28.07.2022
24.	*Notice u/s 148 issued under new regime bey* *expired on 17.06.2022. Thus, t*	*ond the period of* *ime barred– invali*	*6 years which* d Para 77

¶24

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 18:20:51

¶25

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].

¶26

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:

¶27

“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.

¶28

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 .

¶29

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

¶30

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 18:20:51

¶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 10, 2025/ RW

¶35

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 18:20:51

Nimit Builders Private Limited (as Successor in the Interest of Jk Jeet Clothes Private Limited and v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nimit Builders Private Limited (as Successor in the Interest of Jk Jeet Clothes Private Limited and v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & 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

Deepshikha Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Goods and Service Tax Officer Ward - 92 & Anr.

Ganesh Trading Company Vs Superintendent Range 27 Central GST Division New Delhi & Anr.

Mr. Rohit Hans and Anr. Vs Directorate General of Civil Aviation and Anr.

Smita Jindal Vs Commissioner of Cental Goods and Service Tax (Cgst), Delhi West

M/S Fone O Clock, through Its Partner, Sh. Paras Sareen Vs Commissioner of Customs-Preventive, New Custom House New Delhi & Anr.

Indianeye Security Private Limited Vs Sh Nawab Ali & Anr.

Swayam Sidha Residents Welfare Association through Its President/ General Secretary Jagdish Prasad Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

State Bank of India Vs M/S Pp Jewellers Private Limited

Deepshikha Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs Goods and Service Tax Officer Ward - 92 & Anr.

PCIT-1, New Delhi Vs Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Smita Jindal Vs Commissioner of Cental Goods and Service Tax (Cgst), Delhi West

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-16 Vs Dabur Invest Corp

Ravi and Anur Overseas Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Anr.

Abha Gupta Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 35(5) Delhi & Ors.