Allowed

Divine Vision Infraestate Private Limited v. Ito, Ward 7(1), Delhi

Delhi HC10 Mar 2025W.P.(C)/758/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition challenging demand notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2015-16. Relying on Manju Somani and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, the court held that the six-year limitation under the old regime had expired on 31 March 2022, barring the notice issued thereafter.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice is set aside and the petition is allowed.

Divine Vision Infraestate Private Limited Vs Ito, Ward 7(1), Delhi — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~48

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 758/2025 &CM APPL. 3767/2025

¶4

DIVINE VISION INFRAESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Ms. Rano Jain, Mr. Venketesh Chaurasia and Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

ITO, WARD 7(1), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Counsel (appearance not given). CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 10.03.2025

¶11

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) 2015-16.

¶12

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.

¶13

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. 4. 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

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 17/03/2025 at 11:20:41

¶16

judgment:

¶17

“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.

¶18

¶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

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 17/03/2025 at 11:20:41

¶23

(AY) 2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022. 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 applications also stand disposed of.

¶27

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

¶28

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶29

MARCH 10, 2025 uk

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 17/03/2025 at 11:20:41

Divine Vision Infraestate Private Limited v. Ito, Ward 7(1), Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divine Vision Infraestate Private Limited v. Ito, Ward 7(1), Delhi

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

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

Save India Foundation Vs Chairman Railway Board & Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 Vs Umw Sher (L) Ltd.

Rain Cii Carbon Vizag Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India through the Secretary Department of Commerce & Ors.

Manish Mittal as Legal Heir of the Deceased Devender Mittal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 58(3), Delhi & Anr.

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-1 Vs M/S East Delhi Leasing Pvt. Ltd.

Pks Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 15, Delhi & Anr.