A R INFRASTRUCTURES AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED V. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR.

W.P.(C)/2304/2023

AI Insights

The case involves A R Infrastructures and Projects Private Limited challenging the reassessment action initiated by the Income Tax Officer for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary contention was the timeliness of the reassessment proceedings, argued to be time-barred by the petitioner. The court referenced several precedents, including Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments, to guide the evaluation of the reassessment notices' validity and the procedural adherence required under Sections 148 and 153C of the Income Tax Act. The court's decision directs a detailed re-examination of each notice's compliance with legal standards and procedural requirements, emphasizing the need for a reasoned judicial approach in the reassessment process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 756304 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal, Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer & Anr., Kanwaljeet Kaur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal, Naveen Kumar Gupta
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV MENON
• Assessee Lawyers: KAVITA JHA; VAIBHAV KULKARNI; HIMANSHU AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Jurisdictional Assessing Officer; Reassessment; Time barred; Surviving period
• Section: 148; 153C; 151

Judgement Text

"$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2304/2023 & CM APPL. 8756/2023 (Stay) A R INFRASTRUCTURES AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni and Mr. Himanshu Aggarwal, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % 27.02.2025 O R D E R 1. The instant writ petition had been preferred assailing the reassessment action initiated by the respondent pertaining to Assessment Year [‘AY’] 2013-14. We take note of the principal challenge which now remains and pertains to the issue of surviving period. 2. The petitioner, in order to buttress its claim of the proceedings being time barred, has placed for our consideration the following chart: 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 01/03/2025 at 14:36:56 3. 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]. 4. 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 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 01/03/2025 at 14:36:56 following terms: “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. 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. 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.” 5. 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. YASHWANT VARMA, J. HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. FEBRUARY 27, 2025/RW 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 01/03/2025 at 14:36:56 "