I VENTURES INVESTMENT MANAGERS LIMITED V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1 )& ANR.

W.P.(C)/16714/2022

AI Insights

The case involves two writ petitions filed by I Ventures Investment Managers Limited against the Income Tax Officer, challenging the reassessment actions for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The petitions argued that the reassessment notices were barred by limitation, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and other related cases. The High Court of Delhi, after considering the precedents and the arguments presented, directed the Assessing Officer to reassess the validity of the notices in accordance with the cited judgments and principles, and to issue a reasoned order on the matter.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747290 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors, Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, Rajeev Bansal, Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO & Anr., T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV GUPTA; SHIVENDRA SINGH; YOJIT PAREEK
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMIT LALCHANDANI; SALIL KAPOOR; ANANYA KAPOOR; SHIVAM YADAV; TARUN CHANANA; UTKARSH GUPTA
• Keywords: Income Tax; Limitation; Notice; Reassessment; Surviving period
• Section: 148; 153C; 149; 151; 148A(b); 148A(d)

Judgement Text

"W.P.(C) 16714/2022 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 4 $~35 & 36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16714/2022 I VENTURES INVESTMENT MANAGERS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Mr. Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Tarun Chanana & Mr. Utkarsh Kr. Gupta, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1 ) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh & Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs 36 + W.P.(C) 17594/2022 I VENTURES INVESTMENT MANAGERS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Mr. Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Mr. Shivam Yadav, Mr. Tarun Chanana & Mr. Utkarsh Kr. Gupta, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12-1 & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh & Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR O R D E R % 06.02.2025 1. These two writ petitions assail the reassessment action pertaining to Assessment Years [„AYs‟] 2013-14 and 2014-15. 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 19/02/2025 at 12:11:40 W.P.(C) 16714/2022 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 4 2. The challenge proceeds on lines identical to those which we had noticed in Kanwaljeet Kaur v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle (34) 1 Delhi & Ors1 and where we had an occasion to examine the question of “surviving period” in some detail. 3. In order to establish that the impugned notices would be barred by limitation, Mr. Lalchandani, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has placed for our consideration the following chart:- CHART IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGEMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RAJEEV BANSAL, RAM BALRAM², AND KANWALJEET KAUR Item Number 35 36 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 16714 of 2022 17597 of 2022 Assessment Year 2013-14 2014-15 Notice under Section 148 of the Act issued during 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 with annexure number [Pre-judgment dated 04.05.2022 rendered in the case of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal] 30.06.2021 Annexure P-3 [PDF Pg. 68] 24.06.2021 Annexure P-3 [PDF Pg. 68] Surviving period/days before expiry of limitation on 30.06.2021 [Number of days computed by the following formula: 30.06.2021 less date on which initial notice under Section 148 0 days 6 days Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act 17.05.2022 Annexure P-6 [PDF Pg. 85 to 111] 17.05.2022 Annexure P-5 [PDF Pg. 90 to 106] Date on which reply was required to be filed as per notice issued under Section 148A(b) 01.06.2022 01.06.2022 Date on which reply was filed by the assessee in response to the notice under section 148A(b) [along with annexure number] 01.06.2022 Annexure P-7 [PDF Pg. 112 to 115] 01.06.2022 Annexure P-6 [PDF Pg. 107 to 109] 1 2025:DHC:656-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 19/02/2025 at 12:11:40 W.P.(C) 16714/2022 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 4 Last date to issue a notice under section 148 after considering the surviving period 01.06.2022 07.06.2022 Last date to issue a notice under Section 148 after considering the fourth proviso to Section 149 where applicable [Cases wherein notice is issued on/after 23.06.2021] 08.06.2022 08.06.2022 Order under Section 148A(d) of the Act 26.07.2022 Annexure P-8 [PDF Pg. 116 to 124] 26.07.2022 Annexure P-8 [PDF Pg. 125 to 126] Notice under Section 148 of the Act 25.07.2022 Annexure P-8 [PDF Pg. 125 to 126] 26.07.2022 Annexure P-8 [PDF Pg. 118 to 120] Applicability of Rajiv Bansal's judgment (Yes/No) Yes. Barred by Time Limitation Yes. Barred by Time Limitation 4. According to learned counsel, tested on the precepts which came to be enunciated by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal2 and which were also noticed by the Court in Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO & Anr.3 and Kanwaljeet Kaur, the proceedings for reassessment would not sustain. 5. We, however, note that while dealing with these very issues, we had in Kanwaljeet Kaur disposed of a batch of writ petitions in the following terms:- “27. We accordingly dispose of this batch of writ petitions by directing the concerned AOs to evaluate the individual SCNs‟ under Section 148 of the Act bearing in mind our judgments in T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal and Naveen Kumar Gupta. These decisions have conclusively settled issues pertaining to the accordal of sanction under Section 151 as well as the authority of the jurisdictional AO to commence and undertake reassessment. Those decisions also lay at rest the challenge which the writ petitioners had raised that an AO is bound to 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 3 2025: DHC: 547-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 19/02/2025 at 12:11:40 W.P.(C) 16714/2022 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 4 adhere to the procedure prescribed by Section 153C in cases emanating from a search. 28. A similar exercise would have to be undertaken to examine the issue of surviving period in respect of each individual noticee under Section 148 and which would necessarily be guided by the judgments of Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram. 29. The concerned AOs shall consequently pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the impact of the judgments referred to above upon the impugned reassessment notices and in the manner indicated in paras 27 and 28 of this order. That decision shall thus render a finding on whether the impugned reassessment notices would survive or be liable to be recalled. It shall be open to the writ petitioners to assail any adverse orders that may come to be passed pursuant to the above in accordance with law.” 6. We, accordingly, provide that the challenge which stands raised in these two writ petitions shall also be examined by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer in light of the directions extracted above. 7. The present writ petitions are thus disposed of in terms identical to those provided in Kanwaljeet Kaur. YASHWANT VARMA, J. HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. FEBRUARY 06, 2025/v 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 19/02/2025 at 12:11:40 "