Seema Goel V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-19, Delhi

W.P.(C)/6315/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Seema Goel, the petitioner, who challenged a notice and subsequent orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-19, Delhi. The notices were related to the reassessment of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notices were issued beyond the permissible time limit as prescribed under the law, referencing decisions from both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court that supported her position. The respondent did not contest this interpretation. Consequently, the court set aside the notice and allowed the petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798142 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors, Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV JAIN; SHUBHAM GUPTA; SHALINI
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Income Tax; Limitation; Notice; Reassessment
• Section: 148; 148A(b); 148A(d); 149(1)(b)

Judgement Text

"$~ 71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6315/2025 & CM APPL. 28744/2025, CM APPL. 28745/2025 SEEMA GOEL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain, Mr. Shubham Gupta, Ms. Shalini, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 13.05.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a notice dated 28.02.2025 [impugned notice] issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] for the Assessment Year [AY] 2016-17. 2. The petitioner also impugns the order dated 28.02.2025 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice dated 07.12.2024 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 and drew the attention of this Court to the following 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 19/05/2025 at 12:44:56 passages from the said judgment: “46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the “time limits specified under the provisions of” 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime. *** *** *** 49. The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the assesses.” 5. In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevant 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 19/05/2025 at 12:44:56 AY 2016-17 expired on 31.03.2023. The impugned notice was issued thereafter, and is, therefore, barred by limitation. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the aforesaid view. 7. In view of the above, the impugned notice dated 28.02.2025, is set aside. 8. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 13, 2025/KG 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 19/05/2025 at 12:44:56 "