DINESH KUMAR SACHDEVA V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 DELHI

W.P.(C)/5720/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dinesh Kumar Sachdeva, the petitioner, who challenged a notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 15, Delhi, under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice sought to reopen the assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16, based on incriminating information found during a search operation on Gaur Group and related entities. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued beyond the statutory limitation period. The court examined the applicability of Sections 149, 153A, and 153C of the Act, particularly in light of amendments and legal interpretations concerning the timing of reassessments following search operations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 756246 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Ors., Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd., KAD Housing Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6, Delhi, Pankaj Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi & Anr.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR; MONICA BENJAMIN; EASHA KADIAN
• Assessee Lawyers: KAPIL GOEL; SANDEEP GOEL
• Keywords: Limitation Period; Reopening of assessment; Search and seizure; Incriminating information
• Section: 148; 132; 153C; 149(1)

Judgement Text

"$~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5720/2025 & CM APPL. 26056-57/2025 DINESH KUMAR SACHDEVA .....Petitioner Through: Dr Kapil Goel and Mr Sandeep Goel, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr Sanjay Kumar, SSC, Ms Monica Benjamin and Ms Easha Kadian, JSCs for the Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 01.05.2025 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 28.03.2025 issued under Section 148 [the impugned notice] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] seeking to reopen the assessment in respect of the Assessment Year [AY] 2015-16. 3. The petitioner’s case is that the impugned notice has been issued beyond the period of the limitation. 4. In the present case, the petitioner had filed its return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 28.09.2015 declaring the income of ₹29,74,570/-. The impugned notice indicates that a search was conducted on 02.03.2022 under Section 132 of the Act in case of Gaur Group and related entities. It is alleged that during the course of the said search, incriminating information 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 07/05/2025 at 14:39:41 pertaining to the petitioner was found. Based on the said material, the Assessing Officer [AO] issued the impugned notice on 28.03.2025. 5. Although the provisions of Section 153C of the Act are inapplicable in respect of searches conducted after 31.03.2021, in view of the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, it is relevant to consider whether a notice under Section 153C of the Act could be issued for the relevant AY 2015-16 for the purposes of determining whether a notice under Section 148 of the Act can be issued. 6. The controversy in the present case is covered by the decision of this court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Ors.: Neutral Citation No.:2024:DHC:4554-DB, this Court had considered a similar issue and observed as under: “8. Undisputedly, and in terms of Section 153C(3) of the Act, any search if conducted after 01 April 2021, would cease to be regulated by that provision. Sub- section (3), in that sense, embodies a sunset clause insofar as the applicability of Section 153C is concerned. The First Proviso to Section 149(1), however, bids us to go back in a point of time, and to examine whether a reopening would sustain bearing in mind the timeframes as they stood embodied in Section 149(1)(b) or Section 153A and 153C, as the case may be. The First Proviso essentially requires us to undertake that consideration bearing in mind the timeframes which stood specified in Sections 149, 153A and 153C as they stood prior to the commencement of Finance Act, 2021. 9. Thus, an action of reassessment which comes to be initiated in relation to a search undertaken on or after 01 April 2021 would have to meet the foundational tests as specified in the First Proviso to Section 149(1). 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 07/05/2025 at 14:39:41 A reassessment action would thus have to not only satisfy the time frames constructed in terms of Section 149, but in a relevant case and which is concerned with a search, also those which would be applicable by virtue of the provisions of Section 153A and 153C. 10. Undisputedly, and if the validity of the reassessment were to be tested on the anvil of Section 153C, the petitioner would be entitled to succeed for the following reasons. It is an undisputed fact that the proceedings under Section 148 commenced on the basis of the impugned notice dated 30 March 2023. This date would be of seminal importance since the period of six AYs’ or the “relevant assessment year” would have to be reckoned from the date when action was initiated to reopen the assessment pertaining to AY 2013-14.” 7. We also consider it apposite to refer to the decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.: Neutral Citation No.:2024:DHC:2629-DB, where this Court had explained the manner for calculating the block of six years and ten years for the purpose of computing the limitation for issuance of a notice under Section 153C of the Act read with Section 153A of the Act as under: “D. The First Proviso to Section 153C introduces a legal fiction on the basis of which the commencement date for computation of the six year or the ten year block is deemed to be the date of receipt of books of accounts by the jurisdictional AO. The identification of the starting block for the purposes of computation of the six and the ten year period is governed by the First Proviso to Section 153C, which significantly shifts the reference point spoken of in Section 153A(1), while defining the point from which the period of the “relevant assessment year” is to be calculated, to the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non- 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 07/05/2025 at 14:39:41 searched person. The shift of the relevant date in the case of a non-searched person being regulated by the First Proviso of Section 153C (1) is an issue which is no longer res integra and stands authoritatively settled by virtue of the decisions of this Court in SSP Aviation and RRJ Securities as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasjit Singh. The aforesaid legal position also stood reiterated by the Supreme Court in Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia. The submission of the respondents, therefore, that the block periods would have to be reckoned with reference to the date of search can neither be countenanced nor accepted. E. The reckoning of the six AYs’ would require one to firstly identify the FY in which the search was undertaken and which would lead to the ascertainment of the AY relevant to the previous year of search. The block of six AYs’ would consequently be those which immediately precede the AY relevant to the year of search. In the case of a search assessment undertaken in terms of Section 153C, the solitary distinction would be that the previous year of search would stand substituted by the date or the year in which the books of accounts or documents and assets seized are handed over to the jurisdictional AO as opposed to the year of search which constitutes the basis for an assessment under Section 153A. F. While the identification and computation of the six AYs’ hinges upon the phrase “immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year” of search, the ten year period would have to be reckoned from the 31st day of March of the AY relevant to the year of search. This, since undisputedly, Explanation 1 of Section 153A requires us to reckon it “from the end of the assessment year”. This distinction would have to necessarily be acknowledged in light of the statute having consciously adopted the phraseology “immediately preceding” when it be in relation to the six year period and employing the expression “from 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 07/05/2025 at 14:39:41 end of the assessment year” while speaking of the ten year block.” 8. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles, the block of ten assessment years is required to be reckoned from the end of the AY 2025-26 being the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the impugned notice under Section 148 was issued. A tabular statement setting out the block of ten years as set out in the petition is reproduced below: Computation of the ten-year block period No. of years AY 2025-26 1 AY 2024-25 2 AY 2023-24 3 AY 2022-23 4 AY 2021-22 5 AY 2020-21 6 AY 2019-20 7 AY 2018-19 8 AY 2017-18 9 AY 2016-17 10 9. Concededly, the issue involved in the present case is covered by the earlier decisions of this court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others: Neutral Citation: 2024: DHC:4554-DB, KAD Housing Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6, Delhi : Neutral Citation : 2024:DHC:8214- DB and Pankaj Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Delhi & Anr.: Neutral Citation : 2025:DHC:157-DB. 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 07/05/2025 at 14:39:41 10. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue concurs with the aforesaid proposition. 11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned notice is set aside as being barred by limitation. 12. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The pending application also stands disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 01, 2025 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 07/05/2025 at 14:39:41 "