Galaxy Dream Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 25, Delhi and Ors.

W.P.(C)/16662/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Galaxy Dream Home Developers Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, who challenged a notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued beyond the statutory limitation period. The court referenced several precedents, including Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Private Limited, which established that the ten-year period for reopening an assessment is calculated from the end of the assessment year in which the notice is issued, not from the year of the notice's issuance itself. Since the relevant assessment year 2014-15 exceeded this ten-year period, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796514 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Private Limited, Ravi Steel and Renewable Private Limited v. ACIT Central Circle 15, New Delhi and Others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV GUPTA; SHIVENDRA SINGH; YOJIT PAREEK
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA; SOMIL AGARWAL; DUSHYANT AGARWAL
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Limitation Period; Notice; Re-open assessment; Ten years
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16662/2024 & CM APPL. 70456-57/2024 GALAXY DREAM HOME DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ...Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal and Mr. Dushyant Agarwal, Advocates versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 25, DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 03.12.2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a notice dated 31.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) seeking to re-open assessment for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The petitioner contends that the impugned notice is beyond the period of limitation. Concededly, the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by the earlier decisions of this court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others : 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4230 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Private Limited : 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2439. The petitioner also relies on the decision of this court in Ravi Steel and Renewable Private Limited v. ACIT Central Circle 15, New Delhi and Others : W.P.(C) 14361/2024 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 13:01:44 decided on 14.10.2024, and submits that the assessment for a period of ten years is required to be reckoned from the date of the notice. However, he also refers to paragraph 10 of the said decision, which is set out below: “10. Concededly, said issue is covered by the earlier decisions of this Court in Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4230 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2439. In terms of the said decisions, the period of ten years is required to be computed from the end of the assessment year in which the notice under Section 148 of the Act is issued. In the present case, there is no cavil that the AY 2015-16 falls beyond the period of ten years from the date of the issuance of the impugned notice. ” 3. The decisions in the case of Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others (supra) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Private Limited (supra), clarify that the period of ten years is to be reckoned from the end of the assessment year, relevant to the previous year in which the notice is issued and not from the end of the assessment year in which notice is issued. 4. In the present case, the relevant AY 2014-15 falls beyond the said period of 10 years. 5. The petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. 6. Pending applications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J DECEMBER 03, 2024 ns 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 13:01:44 "