Allowed¶25

Tia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(1), Delhi

Delhi HC14 May 2025W.P.(C)/7532/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice; limitation; reassessment; AY 2016-17; six-year period expired 31.03.2023; Section 148A(b) notice; Section 148A(d) order; Income Tax Act, 1961; Section 149(1)(b); TIA Enterprises Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(1), Delhi; W.P.(C) 7532/2024; Manju Somani 2024:DHC:5411-DB; Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693; notice set aside; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned notice dated 02.05.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2016-17 set aside; pending application (CM APPL. 31352/2024) disposed of. ¶25

Tia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~32

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7532/2024 & CM APPL. 31352/2024 TIA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

¶4

.....Petitioner Through: Dr Kapil Goel and Mr Sandeep Goel, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr Sunil Agarwal, SSC Mr Shivansh B. Pandya, Mr Viplav Acharya, Ms Priya Sarkar, JSCs and Mr Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R

¶9

% 14.05.2025

¶10

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , impugning a notice dated 02.05.2024 [ the impugned notice ] issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ the Act ] for the assessment year (AY) 2016-17.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal: 2024

¶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 01/07/2025 at 22:32:32

¶15

SCC OnLine SC 2693 and drew the attention of this Court to the following passages from the said judgment:

¶16

“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.

¶17

¶18

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.”

¶19

¶20

In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevant

¶21

AY 2016-17 expired on 31.03.2023. The impugned notice has been issued thereafter, and the same is thus barred by limitation.

¶22

The learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the aforesaid

¶23

view.

¶24

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

¶25

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending

¶26

application is also disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J

MAY 14, 2025 M

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 01/07/2025 at 22:32:32

Tia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(1), Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 25(1), Delhi

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

Maanoj Agarwala Vs Idbi Bank

Loconav India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Delhi and Anr.

Sandeep Chopra Vs Commissioner of MCD & Ors.

Rajkumar Sukhdevsinhji & Anr. Vs Idbi Bank

Sunny Jagga Vs Union of India & Anr.

Nkc Projects Private Limited Vs Dcit Circle -16(1) New Delhi

Anshul Rajput Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors.

Shikhar Prasad Vs Union of India & Ors.

Loconav India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Delhi and Anr.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-1, Delhi Vs Sh. Praveen Sawhney

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, CENTRAL-1, Delhi Vs Smt. Sangeeta Sawhney

United India Metal Formings Private Limited & Anr. Vs Ms. Shazia Rehman & Anr.

Commissioner of Income Tax (International TAX)-1, New Delhi Vs Goto Technologies Ireland Unlimited Company

Bhagwan Sahai Sharma Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13 -1 Delhi and Anr.