GRMP Buildwell LLP and Ankish Madhan and Karan Vir Singh and Jayesh Lakshmidas Thaker and Lalit Kumar Goel-HUF and Minakshi Bansal and Vipul Goel and Rishabh Jain V. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(1), New Delhi and Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1) Delhi and Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 28(1), Delhi and Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1) and Income Tax Officer-Ward 60-1 and ITO Ward 43(6) Delhi and Central Board of Direct Taxes and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2)

W.P.(C)/4825/2023

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by various petitioners against orders issued by different Income Tax Officers under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitions were consolidated and heard together due to the similarity in the legal issues and the orders challenged. The petitioners contested the validity of the orders, which were issued for reassessment of income tax. The court referenced the judgment in Twylight Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. CIT, which had set a precedent on the necessity of specific authority's approval for such orders. The court found that the impugned orders lacked the required approval, leading to their quashing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 797930 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Twylight Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2024 SCC OnLine Del 330], Ganesh Dass Khanna
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV GUPTA; SHIVENDRA SINGH; YOJIT PAREEK; SANJAY KUMAR; EASHA KADIAN; SUSHIL RAAJA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANANYA KAPOOR; SUMIT LALCHANDANI; VIVEK BANSAL; VISHAL CHECHI; RUCHESH SINHA; NIKHIL GOYAL; VED JAIN
• Keywords: Income Tax; Reassessment proceedings; Writ petition; Quash Orders
• Section: 148A(d); 151(ii)

Judgement Text

"$~67-74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4825/2023 GRMP BUILDWELL LLP ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 30(1), NEW DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC along with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs. 68 + W.P.(C) 5171/2023 ANKISH MADHAN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vivek Bansal and Mr. Vishal Chechi, Advs. versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 29(1) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC along with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs. 69 + W.P.(C) 5177/2023 KARAN VIR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 28(1), DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC along with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs. 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 01/05/2024 at 12:35:23 70 + W.P.(C) 5227/2023 JAYESH LAKSHMIDAS THAKER ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1) & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC along with Ms. Easha Kadian, JSC. 71 + W.P.(C) 5254/2023 LALIT KUMAR GOEL-HUF ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 60-1 & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC along with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs. 72 + W.P.(C) 5263/2023 MINAKSHI BANSAL ..... Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus ITO WARD 43(6) DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC along with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, JSC and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv. 73 + W.P.(C) 5300/2023 VIPUL GOEL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Nikhil Goyal and Mr. 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 01/05/2024 at 12:35:23 Bankim Garg, Advs. versus CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC along with Ms. Easha Kadian, JSC. Mr. Sushil Raaja, SPC for UOI. 74 + W.P.(C) 5314/2023 RISHABH JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Nischay Kantoor and Ms. Soniya Dodeja, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2) & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC along with Ms. Easha Kadian, JSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV % 29.04.2024 O R D E R 1. On hearing learned counsels for parties, we find that the issues and the challenge raised, stands concluded in light of the judgment rendered by the Court in Twylight Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2024 SCC OnLine Del 330]. 2. Accordingly, for the reasons assigned in the aforenoted judgment, we allow the instant writ petitions and quash the impugned orders dated 30 July, 2022 [W.P.(C) 4825/2023], 26 July 2022 [W.P.(C) 5171/2023], 29 July 2022 [W.P.(C) 5177/2023], 28 July 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 01/05/2024 at 12:35:23 2022 [W.P.(C) 5227/2023], 11 July 2022 [W.P.(C) 5254/2023], 27 July 2022 [W.P.(C) 5263/2023], 07 July 2022 [W.P.(C) 5300/2023] and 25 July 2022 [W.P.(C) 5314/2023] passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequential proceedings initiated thereto, subject to liberty reserved as per paragraph Nos. 28 to 30 of Twylight Infrastructure, and which read as under:- “28. Before us, the counsel for the revenue continue to hold this position. The only liberty that they seek is that if, based on the judgment in Ganesh Dass Khanna, the impugned orders and notices are set aside, liberty be given to the revenue to commence reassessment proceedings afresh. 29. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid, the impugned notices and orders in each of the above-captioned writ petitions are quashed on the ground that there is no approval of the specified authority, as indicated in Section 151(ii) of the Act. The direction is issued with the caveat that the revenue will have liberty to take steps, if deemed necessary, albeit as per law. 30. Needless to add, the rights and contentions of both the sides will remain open, in the event the revenue triggers reassessment proceedings.” 3. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. YASHWANT VARMA, J. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. APRIL 29, 2024/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 01/05/2024 at 12:35:23 "