Angels Infraheight Private Limited and Jay Shiva Earthmovers and Construction Private Limited V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 15 Delhi & ORS. and Income Tax Officer Ward 13(3) Delhi

W.P.(C)/16679/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Angels Infraheight Private Limited, the petitioner, who challenged a notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice aimed to reopen the assessment for the year 2015-16. The primary contention was that the notice was issued beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. The court referenced previous decisions, particularly Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd, which supported the petitioner's argument. The court's decision to set aside the notice was based on the interpretation that the limitation period should be calculated from the end of the assessment year 2025-26, making the notice issued for 2015-16 assessments beyond the allowable timeframe.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796504 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others: Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC:4554-DB, The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2629-DB
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: INDRUJ RAI; SANJEEV MENON; RAHUL SINGH; ANMOL JAGGA; ANJU TYAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN; NISHAY KANTOOR; SONIA DODEJA; DIVYANSH; GOVIND GUPTA
• Keywords: Income Tax; Limitation Period; Notice; Reopen assessment
• Section: 148; 149

Judgement Text

"$~91 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16679/2024 & CM APPL. 70589-90/2024 ANGELS INFRAHEIGHT PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Ved Jain, Mr Nishay Kantoor, Ms Sonia Dodeja Mr Divyansh, and Mr Govind Gupta, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr Indruj Singh Rai, SSC, Mr Sanjeev Menon and Mr Rahul Singh, JSCs and Mr Anmol Jagga, Advocate for the Revenue. Ms Anju Tyagi Adv/SPC for R4 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 03.12.2024 1. Issue notice. The learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the notice dated 29.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) seeking to reopen the petitioner’s assessment in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of the limitation as prescribed under Section 149 of 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 09/12/2024 at 13:01:57 Act. 4. Concededly, the issue involved in the present case is covered by the earlier decision of this court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others: Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC:4554-DB as well as the decision in the case of The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2629-DB. 5. In the present case, the impugned notice has been issued during the financial year 2024-25, which is relevant to the AY 2025-26. Therefore, the period of the limitation is required to be computed from the end of AY 2025-26. And, AY 2015-16 is beyond the period of ten years from the end of the AY 2025-26. 6. The impugned notice is, accordingly, set aside as being barred by limitation. 7. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J DECEMBER 03, 2024 M Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 09/12/2024 at 13:01:57 $~82 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16641/2024 & CM APPL. 70397-98/2024 JAY SHIVA EARTHMOVERS AND CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Kapil Goel and Mr Sandeep Goel, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(3) DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr Shivendra Singh and Mr Yojit Pareek, JSCs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 03.12.2024 1. Issue notice. The learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the notice dated 30.08.2024 issued under Section 148 (hereafter the impugned notice) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) seeking to reopen the petitioner’s assessment in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of the limitation as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. 4. Concededly, the issue involved in the present case is covered by the earlier decision of this court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of 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 09/12/2024 at 13:01:57 Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others: Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC:4554-DB as well as the decision in the case of The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2629-DB. 8. In the present case, the impugned notice has been issued during the financial year 2024-25, which is relevant to the AY 2025-26. Therefore, the period of the limitation is required to be computed from the end of AY 2025-26. And, AY 2015-16 is beyond the period of ten years from the end of the AY 2025-26. 5. The impugned notice is, accordingly, set aside as being barred by limitation. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J DECEMBER 03, 2024 M Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 09/12/2024 at 13:01:57 "