G D Goenka Tourism Corp Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 15 Delhi & ANR

W.P.(C)/699/2025

AI Insights

The case involves G D Goenka Tourism Corp Ltd., the petitioner, challenging 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 was issued for the assessment year 2013-14 but was contested as being beyond the statutory limitation period. The Revenue argued that the notice was within time due to findings from a Supreme Court decision which allegedly allowed for such notices post the limitation period under certain circumstances. However, the Delhi High Court, referencing its own earlier decision and the Supreme Court's caution in the cited case, rejected the Revenue's argument and set aside the notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 672617 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.: (2024) 2 SCC 433, ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-28 Delhi & Ors.: Neutral Citation No.:2024:DHC:7423-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; GAURAV KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MANI JAIN
• Keywords: Income Tax; Limitation Period; Reassessment; Section 148; Section 149; Section 150
• Section: 147; 148; 150; 149(1)

Judgement Text

"$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 699/2025 G D GOENKA TOURISM CORP LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr Mani Bhadra Jain, Advocate. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Indruj Singh Rai, senior standing counsel with Mr Sanjeev Menon, Mr Rahul Singh, Mr Anmol Jagga and Mr Gaurav Kumar, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 20.01.2025 CM APPL. 3342/2025 1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 699/2025 and CM APPL. 3341/2025 3. Issue notice. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue accepts notice. 5. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 25.09.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2013-14. 6. The impugned notice is clearly beyond the period of limitation as stipulated under Section 149(1) of the Act. However, it is the Revenue’s case that the impugned notice is within time by virtue of Section 150 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 24/01/2025 at 16:29:46 Act. The Revenue claims that the impugned notice is premised on the ‘findings and directions’ as embodied in the decision of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.: (2024) 2 SCC 433. In the said decision, the Supreme Court had held that in certain cases, the Assessing Officer (AO) could exercise its powers under Section 147/148 of the Act, even in cases which are related to a search conducted under Section 132 of the Act. The Revenue construes the decision as constituting a finding or a direction for issuing such notices in respect of cases such of the Assessee’s. 7. The question whether the decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra) constitutes a finding and a direction for permitting the issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act in cases, which are otherwise beyond the period as stipulated under Section 149 of the Act is no longer res integra. This court in the case of ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Cental Circle-28 Delhi & Ors.: Neutral Citation No.:2024:DHC:7423-DB had rejected a similar contention. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below: “38. It is pertinent to note that a reference to Sections 147 and 148 of the Act in Abhisar Buildwell firstly appears in paragraph 33 of the report and where the Supreme Court observed that in cases where a search does not result in any incriminating material being found, the only remedy that would be available to the Revenue would be to resort to reassessment. 39. However, the Supreme Court caveated that observation by observing that the initiation of reassessment would be “…..subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in Sections 147/148, as in such a 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 24/01/2025 at 16:29:46 situation, the Revenue cannot be left with no remedy”. This sentiment came to be reiterated with the Supreme Court observing that the power of the Revenue to initiate reassessment must be saved failing which it would be left with no remedy. It was thereafter observed in paragraph 36.4 of the report that insofar as completed or unabated assessments were concerned, they could be reopened by the AO by invocation of Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions “……as envisaged/mentioned under Sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved”. 40. It thus becomes apparent that the liberty which the Supreme Court accorded and the limited right inhering in the Revenue to initiate reassessment was subject to that power being otherwise compliant with the Chapter pertaining to reassessment as contained in the Act. The observations of the Supreme Court cannot possibly be read or construed as a carte blanche enabling the respondents to overcome and override the restrictions that otherwise appear in Section 149 of the Act. The observations of the Supreme Court in Abhisar Buildwell were thus intended to merely convey that the annulment of the search assessments would not deprive or denude the Revenue of its power to reassess and which independently existed. However, the Supreme Court being mindful of the statutory prescriptions, which otherwise imbue the commencement of reassessment, qualified that observation by providing that such an action would have to be in accordance with law. This note of caution appears at more than one place in that judgment and is apparent from the Supreme Court observing that the power to reassess would be subject to the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in Sections 147 and 148 of the Act.” 8. Plainly, the controversy involved in this petition is covered by the decision of this court in ARN Infrastructures India Ltd. v. Assistant 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 24/01/2025 at 16:29:46 Commissioner of Income Tax Cental Circle-28 Delhi & Ors. (supra). The contention that the time-period as stipulated under Section 149 of the Act is not applicable, in the given facts, is erroneous and thus rejected. 9. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. Pending application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JANUARY 20, 2025 RK 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 24/01/2025 at 16:29:46 "