Ravi Steel and Renewables Pvt Ltd V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 15 New Delhi and Ors

W.P.(C)/14380/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ravi Steel and Renewables 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 year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that the notice was barred by limitation. The court examined whether the notice was issued within the permissible time frame under Section 149 of the Act. It was determined that the notice was issued beyond the ten-year period from the end of the assessment year 2015-16, leading to its setting aside.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 805271 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4230, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central-1 v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd.: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2439
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DEBESH PANDA; ZEHRA KHAN; VIKRAMADITYA SINGH; ANAUNTTA SHANKAR; YASHIKA GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA; SOMIL AGARWAL; DUSHYANT AGARWAL; SONALI MAURYA
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Income Tax; Limitation; Notice; Reassessment
• Section: 148; 132; 153C; 149

Judgement Text

"$~95 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14380/2024 & CM APPL. 60161-62/2024 RAVI STEEL AND RENEWABLES PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr Somil Agarwal, Mr Dushyant Agarwal, Ms Sonali Maurya, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 NEW DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC Ms.Zehra Khan, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSCs Ms.Anauntta Shankar, Ms.Yashika Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA O R D E R % 14.10.2024 1. Issue notice. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the notice dated 30.08.2024 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act) seeking to reopen the petitioner’s assessment for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 4. The petitioner has raised several questions including challenge to the constitutional vires of explanation 2 of Section 148 of the Act. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the petition to challenging 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 24/10/2024 at 12:52:36 impugned notice on the ground that it is barred by limitation. 5. The petitioner is a company and claims to be engaged in the business of trading of Iron Steel and allied products. The petitioner had filed its original return for the AY 2015-16 on 29.05.2015 declaring a total income of ₹64,31,690/-. 6. A search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 18.10.2019 at the residential premises of certain persons comprising of Alankit Group. The petitioner’s Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (hereafter the AO) received information relating to certain transactions entered into between the petitioner and the searched parties during the years relevant to the AY 2010- 11, 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2017-18. Based on such information, the AO had initiated the proceedings for reassessment of the petitioner’s income for the relevant years and passed the assessment order dated 22.02.2024 under Section 153C of the Act. 7. Apparently, another search was conducted in respect of another group – Gaur Group and related entities on 02.03.2022 – by the Investigation Wing. According to the Revenue, certain incriminating material was found during the search, which warranted reopening of the petitioner’s assessment for the AY 2015-16. 8. It is in the aforesaid context that the AO had issued the impugned notice. The limited question that falls for the consideration of this Court is - whether the impugned notice is beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. 9. According to the petitioner, it is not open for the AO to reopen the assessment for the previous year relevant to the AY 2015-16 as it was clearly beyond the period of limitation from the date of issuance 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 24/10/2024 at 12:52:36 impugned notice. The controversy is, essentially, relates to the date from which the period of ten years is to be computed for issuance of the notice under Section 149 of the Act. 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. 11. Accordingly, the impugned notice is set aside on the ground that it has been issued beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 148 of the Act. 12. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J OCTOBER 14, 2024 M 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 24/10/2024 at 12:52:36 "